博主注： 计划生育，多少人将它演变成了一个骇人的名词，一个政治问题。 80年代想出国，何必非要拿计划生育做借口？ 看来，还原中国计划生育政策与执行中的问题，还需要诸多时日。 苏州大学关于中文系78级学生傅苹造假事件的声明 http://www.suda.edu.cn/html/article/17/31716.shtml 近期，有不少关心我校的海内外校友和朋友给我校来函来电，提及我校中文系78级学生傅苹撰写的 回忆录《弯而不折》（ Bend, Not Break ）中，有多处与当时事实完全不相符合的表述。该书已于 2012 年 12 月 31 日正式出版，因此对我们国家及苏州大学的声誉造成极坏影响，也引起了海内外校友和朋友的极大愤慨。 收到来信来电后，我校立即成立了由相关部门、学院、老师组成的调查小组，对傅苹在校读书期间的学籍档案等进行了认真核查，向傅苹的老师和同班同学进行了了解和访问，得出的基本结论如下： 一．关于傅苹在我校的学习经历。 傅苹，女， 1958 年生，南京籍高考生，于 1978 年 9 月进入江苏师范学院（苏州大学前身），专业是中国语言文学。 1982 年 3 月 16 日办理退学手续，未获毕业证书和学位证书。在读期间，多次无故旷课，违反学校学籍管理规定，影响恶劣，学校曾于 1981 年 10 月给予其行政记过处分。 二．关于傅苹在1978年到1982年四年本科期间修学英语的问题。 傅苹在书中提到，她去美国之前只认识三个英文单词。我们核查后的结果是： 1978 年 10 月— 1979 年 7 月，其英语成绩为“优”， 1979 年 9 月— 1980 年 7 月，其英语成绩为“ 88 ”分，两次考试成绩在班内均属中上等水平。英语是学生的必修课。 三． 关于傅苹毕业论文的问题。 傅苹于 1982 年 3 月从江苏师范学院退学，所以在毕业生名单中未见其名字，在档案中也未见其毕业论文，也没有她的毕业证书和学位证书。 此外，江苏师范学院中文系毕业论文都是以文学和语言学为研究对象，而不会涉及“杀害女婴”这一涉及社会学的内容。 在其就读期间， 78 级同学没有任何人涉及刑事事件，其被投入监狱之事更是子虚乌有！其组织社团被逮捕之事也是一派谎言！ 四． 关于“手指检验”计划生育的问题。 根据苏州大学多位教师（这些教师包括她的同班同学、班主任、中文系领导）证实，学校从未用这种侮辱性的手段对女生进行相关检验，当然更谈不上得到党委领导的支持。傅苹如此编造谎言，是对 78 级所有同学的侮辱！ 根据上述调查结果，我校认为傅苹在书中所写内容严重失实，不仅损害了苏州大学的名誉，也使我们国家形象受到损害，我们将保留追究的权利！ 同时，我们也再一次感谢社会各界关心、维护国家形象和苏州大学名誉的有识之士。苏州大学办学 113 年以来，坚持以人为本，服务社会， 30 多万毕业生为新中国的建设做出了应有的贡献，其中不乏各行各业的骨干和杰出人才，也有许多毕业生离校后心系母校，感念师恩，以捐资助学、校企合作、联合培养人才等多种形式回报母校培育之恩。苏州大学也不乏留学海外的赤子，他们在异国他乡努力奋斗、成绩斐然，不仅赢得良好的社会地位，也为母校增光添彩。他们异域拼搏之时能常念母校深恩，各尽所能，为母校在学科建设、人才培养、科研创新等方面提供帮助，开拓渠道，诚心切切，不求回报，使母校深感欣慰和骄傲。这些事实又岂是个别别有用心之人能妄言抹杀的？ 感谢各位校友和朋友对苏州大学的关注和关心！ 苏州大学 2013 年 6 月 11 日 Official Statement on the Deceptive Behavior of Ping Fu, a Former Student of Soochow University Recently, many of our alumni at home and abroad have contacted us regarding the validity of the book, Bend , Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds. They claim that some stories in the book are outright falsehoods. These falsehoods have given both our school and country a poor reputation and caused our alumni and friends to feel deeply incensed. Upon notification of the inquiries from many of our alumni, an investigation team consisting of professors in relevant departments was formed. After careful examination on Ping Fu's student record in this University's archive and many visits to Ping Fu’s teachers and classmates, the following statement is being released for clarification. 1. Ping Fu was a student at this University with no degree earned Ping Fu, female, born in 1958, a native from Nanjing, was admitted as a student in Chinese Literature in September 1978 into Jiangsu Teachers' College (predecessor of Soochow University, or Suzhou University in pinyin , 苏州大学 ). During her undergraduate years, a demerit entry was made in her record in October 1981 due to several infractions. She formally withdrew from school on March 16, 1982 and earned no diploma or degree from this University. 2. Ping Fu took English as mandated by the curriculum In her book, Ping Fu claimed that she went to the U.S. knowing only three English words – “hello, thank you, and help.” However, our curriculum included mandatory college-level English courses for the first two years. ?The record from the University Registrar’s Office indicates that Ping Fu received an Excellent (equivalent to an A) and an 88% (equivalent to a B+) in English as a freshman (1978 to 1979) and as a sophomore (1979 to 1980), respectively. ? 3. No record of Ping Fu's alleged graduation thesis exists Ping Fu withdrew from the University a few months before graduation. There are no records of her graduation thesis, or any related work and materials in the University Registrar’s Office. As an additional note of clarification, student thesis topics in the Department of Chinese Literature at this University have always been focused on literature and linguistic studies, which do not involve infanticide, a study subject more in the realm of Sociology than in Literature and Linguistics. 4. No student admitted in 1978 was arrested between 1978 and 1982 During 1978-1982, no student admitted in 1978 at this University was arrested for criminal conduct or other reasons, let alone for organizing a literary society. Ping Fu’s claim of her arrest and imprisonment is entirely unfounded and contrary to facts. 5. There was no enforcement of birth control measures on undergraduate students The University hereby states unequivocally that this reputable institution of higher learning has never enforced any birth control measures on undergraduate students . Ping Fu’s allegation of “finger checking” for female students’ menstrual periods for birth control purposes is resoundingly false and has unfairly sullied the reputation of female students at this University. To further confirm the absurdity of such allegation, the University additionally contacted a number of individuals in and out of the University who experienced and are knowledgeable of the time period in question. These individuals, including Ping Fu’s former classmates, faculty advisors and the leadership of the Department of Chinese Literature of this University, have all confirmed without any question that such a practice never occurred at Soochow University. Based on the above findings, this University ultimately concludes that Ping Fu’s relevant narrative in her memoir is factually inaccurate and has damaged the image of Soochow University. Soochow Universityreserves the right to take further action. At the same time, we would like to thank all alumni and friends for their support and concern for Soochow University. Over the past 113 years, Soochow University has nurtured more than 300,000 graduates who have gone on to make significant contributions for our country. These talented alumni remain loyal and attached to their alma mater, expressing their gratitude for their education through regular reunions and donations, and maintaining old friendships from their time at this school. Not only have these alumni made contributions in our country, but many have also gone abroad, spreading the good name of SoochowUniversity through their hard work and successes. Many alumni overseas have quietly given back to the university in the areas of discipline construction, talent training, and scientific research, making their mother university proud. It is not fair for Ping Fu and her thunderous falsehoods to write off the many good deeds and pride that all the other alumni have done and shared for Soochow University. We appreciate all the concern and support that the alumni and friends have shown for our university! Soochow University June 11, 2013
Location: Southand North Buildings , McCormick Place 2301 S. Lake Shore Drive Chicago, Illinois 60616 http://www.mccormickplace.com/attendees/getting-here.php Attendance: 28,941 This event is not opento the public. Why should you be there? 美国图书馆协会（ ALA ） 2013 年年会将于 6 月 29 日邀请傅苹在大会上发表演讲并将向全美国 12 万家公共图书馆推荐那本充满谎言的自传 。 http://news.sciencenet.cn/htmlnews/2013/6/278936.shtm http://ala13.ala.org/highlights#ping-fu Auditorium Speaker Ping Fu Saturday, June 29 12:00-1:00pm Get inspired by Ping Fu’s journey from her childhood during China’s CulturalRevolution to becoming a top American innovator and tech entrepreneur whofounded Geomagic, a 3D digital reality solution company. If you’re currently considering or implementing maker programs in yourlibrary, this program will resonate as more than an incredible personalstory. “I was a maker all along,” she said in an interview with MAKEMagazine. She says that making and craftsmanship are highly revered in Chinaand her experience working in Mao’s factories led to her interest in connectingsoftware to the physical world, that in turn became her vision for Geomagic and3D technology. Ping Fu’s story of personal and business resilience is told in her memoir Bend,NotBreak: A Life in Two Worlds Portfolio/Penguin). The book relates howshe was separated during China’s Cultural Revolution from her parents at ageeight, was forced to work in factories rather than get a school education, andultimately exiled at 25 when she came to the U.S. She quickly made a new lifefor herself as an entrepreneur, worked at the National Center forSupercomputing Applications and ATT Bell Labs,and is a member of PresidentObama’s National Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship and a board memberof Long Now Foundation.
相关博文： 从劳改犯到高科技企业家：傅苹的人生路 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2374-657212.html http://fangzhouzi.blog.hexun.com/83089444_d.html 傅苹今天在其博客上针对我的批评，贴了一篇澄清声明： http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ping-fu/clarifying-the-facts-in-bend-not-break_b_2603405.html 傅苹声称，虽然我的批评是正确的，但是是根据福布斯不准确的报道，而不是根据她新出的书，福布斯的报道后来更正了（意思是我的批评成了无的放矢）。 事实上，看过我对她的批评文章的就知道，虽然福布斯的报道引发了我的批评，但是我的批评并非仅仅针对福布斯的报道，而是针对自2005年以来美国媒体对傅苹的各种报道、傅苹的电台和视频访谈。我也看了傅苹新书放在google book上供试读的前面两章。它们的内容都相当的一致。如果说福布斯的报道有错的话，那么此前美国媒体的其他报道、傅苹接受电台和视频访谈亲口说的话，也全都错了。怪罪到福布斯上面是无济于事的。 傅苹声称，“我没有说过或写过我是在劳改营；我说的是我在南航校园的一个大学宿舍里生活了10年。中国儿童不被送去劳改营。我也没有说我是一个工厂工人。我说毛要我们向农民、战士和工人学习。”（我的翻译） 就在10天前，傅苹接受谷歌的视频访谈时，还说整个文革十年她都生活在隔离区（ghetto）（http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4vRtvswO8s 大约7分15秒开始）。NPR采访她时，说她十岁时被送到劳改农场（correctional farm）达10年之久，她有声有色地讲述如何从劳改农场带东西回来喂她妹妹的故事（ http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_988_Ping_Fu.mp3 15:50开始）。她好意思怪美国记者理解错了她的意思？ 在此前她接受美国英文媒体的所有采访中，她从来说的是从9岁起她被迫在工厂工作，整个文革期间没有受过教育，何时说过她在工厂的工作指的是“毛要我们向农民、战士和工人学习”？（只在中文媒体上这么说过）那不就是当时每个中国学生都经历过的学工、学农、学军吗？那不就是正常教育的一部分吗？怎么就成了她个人的苦难了？是不是所有经历过文革的中国学生都可以向她学习，声称自己在十年间都在工厂工作，没有受过学校教育？ 傅苹声称，自1972年开始学校复课，她从此不知疲倦地学习。 文革期间的学校复课是从1968年就开始的。我们姑且相信南京学校比较特殊，迟至1972年才复课吧。但是此前美国媒体的报道全说她整整10年没有上过学，例如《公司》的报道（http://www.inc.com/magazine/20051201/ping-fu.html ），WeNews的报道（http://womensenews.org/story/women-in-science/100505/geomagics-ping-fu-rises-in-tech-firmament?page=0,1#.UQzHxqVkw1I ），NPR甚至说她十年间没进过教室(http://www.npr.org/2006/03/18/5279787/ping-fu-recreating-the-world-in-all-its-dimensions )。《伊利诺校友杂志》则说她被关了10年，18岁时才被释放。（http://www.uiaa.org/illinois/news/illinoisalumni/0707_b.html ） 为什么所有这些采访过她的美国媒体全都搞错了？都认为她和其他中国学生不一样，没受过任何正常教育？ 傅苹声称，到现在她还记得她目睹了教师被红卫兵四马分尸。但是在看了我的分析后，她承认我的分析比她的记忆靠谱。她说中国对这种虐杀有一种说法，而她为此做了很多噩梦。 这意思是她承认把噩梦当成了现实。中国的说法是“五马分尸”，而不是四马分尸。四马分尸是西方的酷刑。她小时候要做噩梦也应该梦的是五马分尸，而不是四马分尸。更可能的是，她根据西方人的口味来编造四马分尸的故事。 傅苹承认她关于一胎化政策导致溺婴的论文从未发表过，也从未被《人民日报》报道过。但是她说她记得在1982年读过《人民日报》一篇呼吁男女平等的社论。 此前她在接受美国媒体采访时不是一直在说她的论文一度引起了轰动，《文汇报》《人民日报》都不点名地报道了其研究结果了吗？甚至连邓小平都对她的论文感兴趣吗？（听她亲口在NPR说：http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_988_Ping_Fu.mp3 18:00）既然她的论文从未发表过，报纸怎么知道她的研究成果？就算报纸有秘密通道知道其研究，所谓的报道居然就是一篇呼吁男女平等的社论？当时中国报纸呼吁男女平等那是一点都不奇怪的，她有什么理由相信那和她的论文有关？在其声明中她甚至不敢明确地说《人民日报》的社论与她的论文有关。 傅苹声称，所谓联合国因为其论文而制裁中国的说法是她在等护照时听人说的。 原来这么重大而离奇的事件，最多只是她的道听途说，然后就在美国媒体上到处宣讲？ 傅苹提到美国斯坦福大学学生Steven W. Mosher在1981年发表中国溺婴的研究，在1984年出版了有关著作，并称那一年她正在等护照。她并提到《洛杉矶时报》曾报道说Mosher成功游说小布什政府不向联合国提供用于中国的资金。她认为这与她在国内的经历一致。 1984年1月傅苹已经到美国了，为了跟Mosher扯上关系，怎么又改口说成那一年她还在等护照？小布什政府因为反对中国的人口政策而不向联合国人口基金会提供资金，那是小布什政府制裁联合国，和联合国制裁中国有什么关系？而且小布什是2001年上台的，那时候傅苹已在美国生活17年了，和她所谓被迫离开中国，又怎么能扯上关系？ Mosher在1980年左右曾在中国做人口学研究，他关于中国强迫人工流产的文章1981年在台湾发表后，惹怒了中国政府，斯坦福大学于1983年以其违背研究伦理、从事非法活动为由将他开除。他起诉斯坦福大学。这个案件在1984年——也就是傅苹到美国那一年——非常有名，但现在已很少有人知道了。傅苹突然提起她刚到美国时很著名而现在已鲜为人知的这个案子，让我不得不怀疑她当年正是根据Mosher的案子来捏造她的论文故事，以此申请政治避难的。 傅苹声称，因为其论文政府要求她离开中国，但政府没有给特定期限。她通过在新墨西哥大学的一个家庭朋友获得了学生签证。 在此前她接受采访时，全都说是她被中国政府要求在两周内离开中国。直到前天她还在对福布斯记者这么说。最离谱的是她10天前接受谷歌的采访，这是她亲口说的：她的论文引起了国际轰动，联合国对中国进行制裁，她被投入监狱关了三天，因为邓小平问写论文的那个人现在怎么样了，她才被放出来，两周后警方交给她护照要她离开中国。（http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4vRtvswO8s 从10：30开始）她的案子连邓小平都被惊动了，她两周就得到护照了——没错，这是她十天前对着镜头亲口说的。仅仅过了十天，她就改口说因为办护照极其困难，她被释放后等了一年多才拿到护照。这不是撒谎、骗人，是什么？ 傅苹声称，在她上大学时英语是选修课，不是必修课，她从未学过英语，她的英语水平是零，在抵达美国时只记得几个英语单词。 不再说只懂三个英语单词了？但是这仍是谎言。第一、从恢复高考开始，英语就是大学的必修课，她不可能没上过英语课。第二、她的大学同班同学滋兰斋主人（傅苹承认是她的大学同班同学）在批评傅苹的文章中说：“当年我们中文系1978级两个班，这个人的英语水平算是高的，在快班。”第三、傅苹承认自己考上了南京大学比较文学硕士专业的研究生，只是因故没有去上。研究生入学考试必考英语。 顺便说一下，傅苹声称其大学同班同学滋兰斋主人的文章是对我的回应，和她的说法一致，这也是谎言，是欺骗不懂中文的美国读者。事实上，滋兰斋主人的文章是在揭露她的谎言的： http://zilanzai.i.sohu.com/blog/view/253678027.htm 傅苹声称，在那张红卫兵合影照片中，如果放大的画可以看出她没有戴红卫兵袖章，那是他们在她读书的学校的红卫兵旗帜前照的。 实际上，在那张照片中，每个人的左手臂都戴着红卫兵袖章，包括傅苹。那张照片并非是在学校照的，而是在南京灵谷寺照的，是他们打着“红卫兵团”旗帜去那里游玩时的合影。 傅苹声称，她没有申请政治避难。 但是《星岛日报》去年2月份关于她参加美国国土安全部移民局举办的首届移民企业家峰会，并获得美国移民局授予“杰出归化美国人”称号的报道明确说她是通过政治避难获得绿卡的：“坐在主讲台上的四位移民企业家都有各自的故事，杰魔公司华裔董事长傅苹出生在中国大陆，成长于文革时期，1983年来美国后申请了难民庇护得到身分，之后创立了自己的公司。”（http://oversea.stnn.cc/NY/201202/t20120224_1707578.html ）如果傅苹不是通过政治避难获得美国绿卡，她又是通过什么途径在1987年之前获得绿卡的？其他途径都更不适合她。 傅苹声称批评不是诽谤，而是讲述或寻找真相的方式，她欢迎建设性的批评。 她一直在说假话，讲了很多年，现在发现谎言圆不了了，就用新的谎言掩盖，这如何建设得起来？揭露一个说谎的人说谎，揭露一个骗人的人骗人，那不叫诽谤，那只是指出事实真相。 羅慰年：谎言焦虑症——傅苹现象投射的谎言焦虑 有个叫傅苹的华人，写了一本自传，叫《弯而不折》(Bend， Not Break)。最近这本书上了亚马逊网上书店，引来许多中国人，包括傅苹的大学同学和打假斗士的口诛笔伐。 很多批评是根据对作者的采访的内容作出的。作者对批评的回应是，“不管报道怎么写，他们都应该以我的书为准。大多数提出质疑的人都没有读过我的书。” 这本书，还没有中文版。我也暂时没有打算读英文版原著。我不想跳进就书的内容真伪和作者说了那些谎的争论中，不想一头栽进这本书的是是非非的讨论里。我想从另外一个角度，分析傅苹现象。 分析傅苹现象，不得不提“说谎者悖论”。公元前六世纪，哲学家克利特人艾皮米尼地斯(Epimenides)说过一句著名的话——“所有克利特人都说谎，他们中间的一个诗人这么说。” 如果“所有克利特人都说谎”，埃庇米尼得斯是克利特人，那么，他说“所有克利特人都说谎”，就是一个谎言。如果他说的是谎言，那么也就是说，所有克利特人都不说谎；艾皮米尼地斯就不是在说谎。显然，这句话陷入了自我无限循环的逻辑矛盾之中。 英国哲学家罗素对于这个悖论感到非常棘手。他说，“那个说谎的人说：‘不论我说什么都是假的’。事实上，这就是他所说的一句话，但是这句话是指他所说的话的总体。只是把这句话包括在那个总体之中的时候才产生一个悖论。” 他承认这种分析“毫不成功”，因为“指不出纠正的方法是什么。” “所有克利特人都说谎，他们中间的一个诗人这么说。”第一句话和第二句话的关系，也许可以这么看：所有克利特人都说谎，这句话是他们中间的一个诗人说的；这个诗人在说这句话的时候，显然没有把自己这个“克利特人”包括在第一句话所做的论断的语境里。也就是说，他在心理认同上，把自己从“克利特人”中抽离出来，而作出第一句论断的。也就是说，他在显意识和潜意识里，并没有把自己看成是“克利特人”。 分析傅苹现象，可以借用“说谎者悖论”的逻辑叙述方式。我们不妨稍稍改变这个悖论，换一种表达：“所有中国人都说谎，他们中间的一个叫傅苹的这么做了。”这种表达方式，非常符合目前傅苹在中国遭遇到的“千夫所指”的境况。傅苹通过她的行为，客观上揭开中国人说谎的真相。那些批评傅苹说谎的人，倒像“说谎者悖论”里的那个克利特诗人，他们把自己从说谎的中国人中抽离出来。他们站在一个道德的高地，对“说谎者”进行无情批评。 这种批评论断，恰恰反映了批评者的深层心理。我写这篇杂感，无意替任何一方做背书。我只对这个事件背后的社会心理现象感兴趣。为什么傅苹的这本书引起了她的同学们和方舟子的注意？除了内容的敏感之外，我认为最关键的，可能正是作者说了许多谎。从方舟子对傅苹前后说法矛盾的分析看，傅苹甚至毫不掩饰说谎的行为，不断用一个谎言掩盖另一个谎言。方舟子曾焦虑地问，“三种截然不同的说法都是她亲口说的，她要我们相信哪个？” 傅苹是否说谎，很多人可以根据个人经验提出证明和证伪；合理的解释是，她在写作的时候，没有意识到她在说谎，说谎成了一种习惯性的、由潜意识驱动的行为——这也是目前中国社会的基本状态。如果这种假设成立，傅苹下笔千言写下的，原本就是“满纸荒唐言，一把辛酸泪”。没有料到，到了“捍卫科学、拒绝谎言”的新逻辑实证主义大师这里，通过考证训诂，都成了“言之凿凿”的“大谎话”。这叫傅苹情何以堪？看懂《红楼梦》的开卷诗的人，都不难明白曹雪芹说的“都云作者痴，谁解其中味”是什么意思，为什么到了《弯而不折》这里，又全体一致都不明白了呢？ 从道德的角度，早在纪元初期，就有耶稣使徒保罗对“说谎者悖论”下过结论。在《新约圣经》《提多书》里，保罗说“有克利特人中的一个本地中先知说：‘克利特人常说谎话，乃是恶兽，又馋又懒’。”在道德上判了克利特人“常说谎话”死刑。从逻辑学的角度，“说谎者悖论”到了罗素那里，也已山穷水尽。从心理学的角度解读说谎现象，也许柳暗花明，为我们开启一扇有益的思维大门。 傅苹现象，折射了中国上下弥漫的“谎言焦虑症”。论断傅苹说谎是集体谎言焦虑症的心理投射的杰作。因为大家都习惯了说各种谎言，从GDP到CPI, 从基尼数，到MP2.5, 从打雷把动车打断，到鞭炮把高速桥炸塌；大家都习惯了“把偏房说成正房，一味瞒天大谎，全无半点真实”；大家都习惯了生活在谎言营造的心理氛围里；大家都习惯了“皇帝穿着华丽的新衣”这种语境，就像都已经习惯了没有选举的民主一样。这时，突然有个人不用语言，而是用公然的“说谎的行动”把大家长期精心维护的谎言游戏规则给彻底颠覆了。 皇帝的新衣这回不是被一个说了大实话的小男孩扒了下来，而是被一个叫傅苹的女人用“满纸荒唐言”的行为扒了下来。是可忍，孰不可忍？ 论断傅苹说谎的人，必须先把自己从“说谎者悖论”的逻辑陷阱里拉出来，必须从集体谎言焦虑症的焦虑状态中跳出来，才能做出客观的的论断和公正的批评。论断者们忽略当下遍布中国的全面性、系统性、制度性、理论性、长期性、历史性的瞒天大谎，把石头扔向一个说了几句谎话的女人，于事何补？大胆改动耶稣的一句话：你們中间谁是沒有说谎的，誰就可以先拿石头打她。 a href="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=cookiepos=PushDown"img src="http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_remote.html?type=noscriptpage=blog.nytimes.com/rendezvous/postposall=XXL,AdShareData,PushDown,FixedPanel,TopAd,Bar1,Position1,Position1B,Top5,SponLink,MiddleRight,Box1,Box3,Box3A,Bottom3,Right5A,Right6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bottom9,Header1,Header2,Header3,Inv1,Inv2,CcolumnSS,Middle4,Left1B,Frame6A,Left2,Left3,Left4,Left5,Left6,Left7,Left8,Left9,JMNow1,JMNow2,JMNow3,JMNow4,JMNow5,JMNow6,Feature1,Spon3,ADX_CLIENTSIDE,SponLink2pos=PushDownquery=qstringkeywords=?" February 20, 2013, 8:31 am 77 Comments True or False? The Tussle Over Ping Fu’s Memoir By DIDI KIRSTEN TATLOW Jonathan Fredin/Geomagic, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images Ping Fu has come under fire for allegedly lying in her memoir. Did Ping Fu, a prominent Chinese-American businesswoman and author of a recent memoir, “Bend, not Break,” make up her horrible experiences during the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution in order to gain United States citizenship? Did they help her become an American by claiming political asylum? That’s what her critics, many of them fellow Chinese-Americans, say. It’s an accusation that can stick. As a recent New York Times investigation showed, claiming persecution has spawned an immigration industry involving lawyers prepping clients to make false asylum claims . As I write in my Letter from China this week , Ms. Fu is being accused of making up a lot of things in her memoir. She’s also a successful entrepreneur: the U.S. government honored Ms. Fu, the founder of the software company Geomagic (in the process of being sold to 3D Systems), with a “ 2012 Outstanding American by Choice ” award. Ms. Fu is on the board of the White House’s National Advisory Council on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, and is a member of the National Council on Women in Technology, according to the Web site of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Ms. Fu, who says in her memoir she was “quietly deported” to the U.S. in 1984 for writing about female infanticide while still a college student, denies the accusations. But until now she hadn’t explained in public how she became an American. In an interview with the International Herald Tribune, she said, apparently for the first time, the reason she kept quiet was she was trying to protect her first husband, an American, whom she does not mention in her memoir. The marriage took place while she was living in California, she said. “I had a first marriage and that’s how I got my green card,” she said by telephone. She married on Sept. 1, 1986 and divorced three years later. Until now she had kept silent because of a “smear” campaign against her online, mostly by fellow Chinese who accuse her of lying, which extended to real-life harassment, she said: “They smear my name, they try to get my daughter’s name on the Internet, they sent people to Shanghai to surround my family and to Nanjing to harass my neighbors.” She said the accusers, who are “angry” for reasons she doesn’t really understand, contacted U.S. immigration authorities to challenge her award and her citizenship, as well as shareholders of 3D Systems to warn them she was a “liar,” and not to buy Geomagic. Her second husband, Herbert Edelsbrunner, whom she has since divorced, received many “hate e-mails,” she said. “I just don’t want to hurt innocent people.” If a first, unpublicized marriage might lay to rest one contentious issue, there are others. Some were the result of exaggeration or unclear communication with her co-author, MeiMei Fox of Los Angeles, she said. In the interview, she volunteered an example of an error: a widely criticized account of the ‘‘period police,’’ the authorities who checked a woman’s menstrual cycle to ensure she wasn’t pregnant in the early days of the one-child policy. To stop women substituting others’ sanitary pads for inspection, they were sometimes required to use their own finger to show blood. Through a misunderstanding with Ms. Fox, Ms. Fu said this was portrayed as the use of other people’s fingers — an invasion of the woman’s body. Ms. Fox “wrote it wrong,’’ she said. ‘‘I corrected it three times but it didn’t get corrected.’’ Women used their own finger to show blood, she said, but the mistake went into print anyway. In general, Ms. Fox may have ‘‘just made some searches on the Internet that maybe weren’t correct,’’ Ms. Fu said. Chiefly the errors involved use of the words ‘‘all, never, any,’’ that generalized unacceptably, Ms. Fu said. And, ‘‘She doesn’t know China’s geography,’’ she said. At the beginning of her memoir, Ms. Fu writes of being kidnapped by a Vietnamese-American on arrival in the U.S. state of New Mexico and locked in his apartment to care for his very young children, whose mother had left, in a bizarre incident. A spokeswoman at the Albuquerque Police Department’s Records Office, where the alleged kidnapping took place, said she could not locate such an incident in their records. Asked about it, Ms. Fu repeated that she did not press charges as, fresh from China, she was terrified of all police, “So I don’t know how they keep records, if there is no criminal charges or record.” And in an e-mail to me, she admitted she made mistakes about a magazine she said she helped edit, called Wugou, or “No Hook,” produced in 1979 by students at her college, then called the Jiangsu Teacher’s College (later it changed its name to Suzhou University, she said.) It was not that magazine but another one, This Generation, that was taken to a meeting in Beijing of student magazine writers from around the country, she wrote in the e-mail. “A good case that shows everyone’s memory can be wrong,” she wrote. But bigger questions about the scale of the online vitriol from parts of the Chinese and Chinese-American community remain. “I really haven’t known China for 20-something years, and it didn’t occur to me that what I wrote would generate so much anger,” she said. In the last years, “as China got stronger, nationalistic views got stronger,” she said, making a “civil conversation” about disagreements apparently harder. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/world/asia/21iht-letter21.html?_r=0 Letter from China Ensnared in the Trap of Memory By DIDI KIRSTEN TATLOW Published: February 20, 2013 BEIJING — “I remember we heard a nightingale together, on the boulevard near the Sacred Heart convent. But there are no nightingales in North America.” So wrote Mary McCarthy in “Memories of a Catholic Girlhood,” challenging the reliability of memory. Reviewing the book in 1957 in The New York Times, Charles Poore said, “We all add to our memories of childhood appropriate bits of what we have read or heard since then.” The fallibility of memory may partly explain the fracas surrounding “Bend, Not Break,” a recently published business-cum-personal memoir by Ping Fu, born in 1958, of growing up in China during the Cultural Revolution, moving to the United States and founding a successful software company called Geomagic. Ms. Fu, too, has her “nightingale” moment, in Nanjing. Red Guards, she writes, had sent her there from her childhood home of Shanghai (where she was staying without a residence permit, with relatives) to live at the university where her father taught. (In her narrative, her parents were banished to the countryside soon after she arrived.) There she was forced by Red Guards to watch a teacher “quartered by four horsemen on the soccer field.” Details like that have produced a storm of opposition from some Chinese, especially in the United States, who accuse Ms. Fu of lying. The Cultural Revolution was bad for many, they agree, but it’s important to be accurate. Ms. Fu’s story simply isn’t. “I personally feel that it is very important to use facts and rigid analysis instead of fabricated stories to bridge various knowledge and cultural gaps between China and the outside world,” Kevin Tu, who is Chinese and lives in the United States, wrote in an e-mail. “While I can easily enjoy reading books such as ‘Mao’s Great Famine”’ — Frank Diktter’s account of the brutality of the Great Leap Forward — “I just couldn’t accept the fact someone like Fu Ping intentionally misbehaved for personal gain,” Mr. Tu wrote. Accusations are flying in online forums. Calm voices are hard to find. Other things the critics don’t believe: that she was “quietly deported” to the United States in 1984 for writing a university thesis about female infanticide; that she was gang-raped by Red Guards. On that last point, Ms. Fu said by telephone from the United States, “They are in denial.” Rape happened during the Cultural Revolution, she said. She stands by her statement that she was told to leave, though she agrees “deported” wasn’t a good choice of word. And Ms. Fu has since said that the quartering by horse was an “emotional memory,” something Ms. McCarthy explored. There may be more admissions to come. “If I have made any factual errors, I’d be more than happy to correct them in the next printing,” she said. Her critics will be glad to hear that. Perhaps what’s needed to calm the storm is for Penguin, her publisher, to appoint a fact-checker. Yet the difficulty is that the instant something sounds bizarre, closer investigation finds kernels of possible truth. She writes that state agents abducted her after they heard about her infanticide paper and that she was detained for three days in stinking conditions. Such things still happen in China. Ms. Fu sent me a scanned copy of what she said was a letter from a fellow student, dated May 1982. In the hand-written letter, he mentions that Ms. Fu left university abruptly, without graduating, as all the others were finishing their theses — under mysterious circumstances that classmates gossiped about but didn’t understand. He writes that college officials were saying that Ms. Fu had a nervous breakdown after being jilted. A classmate was named as the former boyfriend. Ms. Fu said in the interview that this was a cover-up and that in reality she was in political trouble, that her thesis had been secretly passed by a sympathetic teacher to a newspaper and traveled up the chain. Eventually, she said, it caused a national and international scandal about the abuses of the one-child policy. In the letter, the classmate wonders if the story about the jilting was true. He writes that he spoke to the jilter “for about an hour” about Ms. Fu, but the man was distant and “He says he was also a victim.” By 1983, state news media were reporting on female infanticide. “At present, the phenomena of butchering, drowning and leaving to die female infants and maltreating women who have given birth to female infants have been very serious. It has become a grave social problem,” People’s Daily reported on March 3 of that year, according to a New York Times article dated April 11. If it’s difficult to establish the truth, there’s a reason: 37 years after the Cultural Revolution, it’s still impossible to research, discuss or publish about it freely in China. Censorship is harsh — there are well-known people who have much to hide about what they did, some say. Guilt lingers. The result is confusion, despite a deep well of personal memory (memory again!). The field is open for denial, exaggeration and shame. “Proof” is often merely recollection, Ms. McCarthy’s unreliable friend. Is Ms. Fu telling the truth, but people just don’t know it? Or are “nightingales” singing in a self-dramatizing narrative? Until China opens its archives and permits open debate, we won’t know. Not for sure. Because even “experts” on China are often wrong. The facts just aren’t available. A version of this article appeared in print on February 21, 2013, in The International Herald Tribune .
对于傅萍没什么可说的，要说的是，这个热门人物热门事件牵扯到了毛思迪。 方舟子批傅萍的文章写到： Mosher【就是毛思迪——转注】在1980年左右曾在中国做人口学研究，他关于中国强迫人工流产的文章1981 年在台湾发表后，惹怒了中国政府，斯坦福大学于1983年以其违背研究伦理、从事非法 活动为由将他开除。他起诉斯坦福大学。这个案件在1984年——也就是傅苹到美国那一 年——非常有名，但现在已很少有人知道了。傅苹突然提起她刚到美国时很著名而现在 已鲜为人知的这个案子，让我不得不怀疑她当年正是根据Mosher的案子来捏造她的论文 故事，以此申请政治避难的。 那个时代开始的中国计划生育政策，纯属有意无意陷入国际圈套（这个圈套的设计者既包括西方的右派如基辛格，也包括自由派，例如斯坦福大学盛产的末日论者）。 对中国人口学历史深有研究的易富贤这样写到： 联合国人口基金并在国际社会宣传中国计划生育是自愿的，不存在强制堕胎 。 美国斯坦福大学博士生Steven W. Mosher（中文名：毛思迪） 1979年-1980年去中国调研（是第一个访问中国的美国社会学者）。他当时是持pro-choice（选择优先）观点的无神论者，但目睹中国残忍的强制计划生育之后，他成为了一名pro-life（生命优先）的天主教徒 。他回国之后，向美国社会揭示了中国强制堕胎、强制结扎的现实，并展示了一些残忍的相片，但他被取消博士学位 。 （《洛克菲勒基金影响中国人口政策--牛文元误导中国决策》，链接：http://yi.fuxian.blog.163.com/blog/static/109005802201121410559767/——如果你本能地认为这是阴谋论，请你去美国政府网站去搜索被迫解密的NSSM-200文件） Wiki上面这样介绍毛思迪： In 1979 Mosher became the first American research student to conduct anthropological research in rural China after the Cultural Revolution. At the time he was married to a woman from Guangdong province, and for several months between 1979 and 1980 lived in rural Guangdong. He also traveled to Guizhou, a remote and rarely visited part of China. In 1981 Mosher was denied re-entry to China by the Chinese government, which considered he had broken its laws and acted unethically. Mosher was expelled from Stanford University's Ph.D program after publishing an article in Taiwan about his experiences in Guangdong. This expulsion occurred shortly before the publication of Broken Earth. The Chinese government was angry and embarrassed by the contents of the book, which revealed among other things that forced abortions were common in that part of China as a part of the one-child policy. Chinese commentators say that Stanford University was put in an awkward situation because Mosher went to places he was not allowed to go. He also released photographs of Chinese women having abortions with their faces exposed, a violation of personal privacy, according to standards of anthropological ethics. He was expelled from Stanford University due to "illegal and unethical conduct." The Mosher case became a cause célèbre in the academic world, for it was said that Stanford acted under pressure from the Chinese government, which threatened to withhold permission for future Stanford researchers to visit China. However, Stanford said that its concern was that Mosher's informants had been put in jeopardy and that this was contrary to anthropological ethics. 到了这两年，新闻终于能够报导中国政府的计生机构强制结扎、强制堕胎乃至杀婴的事件了。 毛思迪才是位值得铭记的热爱人类（也包括中国人）的正义人士。
标签: 傅苹
