"He has a great contrast and obvious double standards - he is very clear about others' faults but does not notice his own defects. He has an obsession with cleanliness, yet he is not a perfect person, and he doesn't live easily." This was how Yi Hua, a scholar at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, evaluated Fang Zhouzi.
It is in this severe controversy between positive and negative opinions that Fang Zhouzi occasionally appears in the public eye. And every time he makes an appearance, it becomes the focus of public attention.
Flowing Friends
Liu Huajie, a professor in the Department of Philosophy at Peking University, was one of the first people to welcome Fang Zhouzi into the domestic science popularization circle. In 1999, Liu Huajie interviewed Fang Zhouzi online, and the article was published in the Science Times. He also planned and edited the book "Fangzhou Online" which was published in 2000.
The publication of this first multi-disciplinary online debate anthology in China, due to its "clear position and strong confrontational nature," made Fang Zhouzi, a biochemistry PhD from the US, famous domestically. After that, Liu Huajie treated Fang Zhouzi as a like-minded friend.
Jiang Xiaoyuan, Director of the Department of History of Science at Shanghai Jiaotong University, wrote in the book review of "Fangzhou Online," using the phrase "young hero arrives, fierce wind hits the face" to highly recommend it.
"In today's academic corruption, when we desperately need 'academic police' and there are very few 'academic police,' what is wrong with Fang Zhouzi voluntarily serving as 'academic police' on the other side of the ocean? To judge things based solely on motives and make harsh criticisms is the way of moralists in feudal times, not the attitude we should take today." Jiang Xiaoyuan wrote.
Indeed, the significance of Fang Zhouzi's fight against fraud was particularly prominent at that time. Associate Professor Tian Song from the School of Philosophy and Sociology at Beijing Normal University said that domestic media once regarded scientists as "saints," being silent about scientific fraud. It was only Fang who, through "Chinese anti-fraud exported from America," brought justice, thus contributing to the purification of the academic environment.
In 2001, at the new book release and reader meeting of Fang Zhouzi's book "Ulcer - Facing China's Academic Corruption" held at the Guolin Wind Bookstore in Beijing, Tian Song met Fang Zhouzi. At that time, Tian Song admired Fang Zhouzi because they had similar characteristics - both were from science and engineering backgrounds and enjoyed writing.
At that time, the online magazine "Xinyusi" founded by Fang Zhouzi and others in 1994, the world's first Chinese-language online publication, had already gained some fame by 1998, attracting many science enthusiasts and intellectuals.
After the "9·11" incident, a scholar in Beijing hosted a dinner attended by Fang Zhouzi, Liu Huajie, Liu Bing from Tsinghua University's Institute for the Study of Science, Technology, and Society, Guo Zhengyi from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and others. That evening, Fang posted on Xinyusi that the intellectual circle of Beijing held a banquet to welcome him. After learning about this, Tian Song shook his head: "I realized then that there was an intellectual circle in Beijing." This incident greatly diminished Tian Song's impression of Fang Zhouzi.
In 2001, during the selection of the "Science Popularization Book Award" jointly organized by the Chinese Reading Newspaper and Science World, Liu Bing recommended Mae-Wan Ho's "Genetic Engineering: Dream or Nightmare" for evaluation. Fang Zhouzi believed that this was a work attacking genetic engineering from an anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific standpoint. He wrote "Dream or Nightmare Is Not a Science Popularization Work" to express his views, and ultimately, the book did not win the award for excellent science popularization.
Fang Zhouzi wrote in an article that he "offended Liu Bing, a professor at Tsinghua University's School of Humanities, who wanted to introduce Mae-Wan Ho's 'scientific feminism' to China."
At that time, Professor Zhao Nanyuan from Tsinghua University also supported Fang Zhouzi's conclusion. Ke Zhiyang, then a master's student of Liu Bing, debated with Fang Zhouzi and Zhao Nanyuan on issues in the book, using Fang Zhouzi's platform "Xinyusi." However, in reality, Zhao Nanyuan criticized Ke Zhiyang's article, which Fang Zhouzi immediately posted, while Ke Zhiyang's rebuttal against Zhao Nanyuan required Zhao Nanyuan's commentary before Fang would post it.
Ke Zhiyang was very dissatisfied with this and demanded that Fang Zhouzi clarify his multiple roles since he was both the owner, editor, and debate opponent of Xinyusi. Fang Zhouzi replied that Xinyusi does not provide a platform for incorrect viewpoints, suggesting that if you have the ability, you can start your own website. "Fang Zhouzi's behavior made me, as an observer, extremely angry," Tian Song said.
At this point, Tian Song realized that Xinyusi was not a rational and inclusive debate platform but rather Fang Zhouzi's personal arena. The conflict between Liu Bing and his students with Fang led Tian Song to completely lose faith in Fang Zhouzi.
Tian Song then wrote a letter criticizing Fang Zhouzi: "A person must be fair. Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself. Since you publish opponents' works in the form of comments, you should allow them to publish your works in the same form. Since you lack fairness, you do not deserve to be an opponent." Tian Song ended the letter by saying "we part ways here."
The "Dream or Nightmare" incident escalated continuously, later involving Liu Huajie and Tian Song among others. Fang Zhouzi labeled the opposition as "anti-science cultural figures," accusing Liu Huajie of anonymous attacks and moving from anti-pseudoscience to anti-science. Meanwhile, Liu Huajie and others accused Fang Zhouzi of using the label of science to suppress others.
This event marked the beginning of Liu Huajie's split with Fang Zhouzi. Prior to this, Liu Huajie had publicly stated that his academic views diverged from Fang Zhouzi's. Fang Zhouzi, in an article, claimed that Liu Huajie never had good intentions when they initially interacted.
Liu Bing believed that fundamentally, Liu Huajie's split with Fang Zhouzi was due to differences in academic stance, "according to Fang Zhouzi's usual practices, they could not have had a good relationship."
Ten years later, Liu Huajie told the reporter from Legal Weekly, "I really regret introducing Fang Zhouzi into the domestic science circle. I truly don't want to talk about this person anymore. I can only self-reflect, acknowledging my carelessness in making friends, and apologize again to everyone."
Yan Lieshan, a well-known media figure, believes that Fang Zhouzi will cherish his credit and hard-earned right to speak. If he does not follow the rules, relevant parties will correct him, including through legal action. "The speech market has its own purification mechanism," Yan said.
Liu Bing believes that under the coexistence of different viewpoints, articulating one's own views while understanding the reasonableness of others' views is the most basic attitude scholars should have, and Fang Zhouzi failed to achieve this.
After the "Dream or Nightmare" incident, Jiang Xiaoyuan proposed the widely known "three no" policy towards Fang Zhouzi within the scientific community: "do not acknowledge, do not engage, do not respond." Later rephrased as "do not insult, do not argue, do not stop." Some pointed out that although these policies avoided the possibility of being insulted, they represented an irresponsible attitude towards society. Jiang Xiaoyuan's "three no" policy later became the common guideline for many people dealing with Fang Zhouzi, avoiding any mention of matters related to Fang to avoid being dragged into disputes.
"Fang Zhouzi rarely maintains lifelong friendships. Making friends requires rules, such as being reasonable and tolerant," Liu Bing commented, "he is not a suitable person to befriend."
Procedural Justice in Fighting Fraud
In Fang Zhouzi's career fighting academic fraud, his conflict with renowned scholar Yu Jianrong was one of the most notable cases.
On October 8, 2005, the top article under "Newly Arrived Materials" on Xinyusi was signed by "Yan Jin," titled "An Uncommon Academic Fraud: Evaluating Yu Jianrong's Path to Fame." The author questioned Yu Jianrong's title and the authenticity of his surveys and research: "There are hundreds of articles online about his 'Contemporary Chinese Farmers' Rights Protection Activities and Politics—Speech at Harvard University on December 4, 2003.' Repeating content chewed over multiple times, presented as a 'speech at Harvard University,' is undoubtedly for promotional purposes."
The article continued: "A friend of Yu Jianrong in Beijing said that Yu doesn't even understand basic English conversation, misunderstanding 'How are you?' as 'How is you?' and 'How old are you?' as 'How old always you?' Therefore, it would take him at least three to four hours to finish those speeches, clearly indicating that he lied again."
The next day, Yu Jianrong's "Open Letter to Xinyusi" appeared as the seventh item under "Newly Arrived Materials," responding point by point to "Yan Jin's" accusations. Fang Zhouzi added a comment to this reply: "I saw the following announcement on the website of the Rural Development Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Does this mean that Yu Jianrong is now a 'Associate Researcher'? Or even the people in his institute cannot confirm whether he is a Researcher or an Associate Researcher?"
Yu Jianrong was incensed by Fang Zhouzi's sarcastic remarks. Two days later, he sent "A Letter to Bastard Fang Zhouzi" to Fang Zhouzi's email: "If you cannot 'judge' whether the farmers defending their rights in Hengyang County praised by me are 'gangsters,' then I will tell you that from your character of biting recklessly, you are the strange offspring of your mother and gangsters like Yan Jin."
Southern Weekend described their battle as "a mutually destructive war," but Fang Zhouzi strongly rejected this characterization: "Southern Weekend reported on this event without maintaining an objective reporting stance. The headline itself set the tone: 'Mutually Destructive War,' declaring as the referee: 'Neither of the two won this war and chaos.' I really don't understand where I lost or got hurt in this 'war.' If cursing me could make me lose or get hurt, anyone who wants to defeat or injure me in the future would find it too easy."
Fang Zhouzi's refusal to admit defeat or mistakes is a recognized characteristic in the scientific community. He never apologizes for certain behaviors or statements that others consider erroneous, often being the last person to speak in debates when the audience has long since dispersed. "Apologizing makes the person you've hurt forgive you," Liu Bing said.
Yu Jianrong told Southern Weekend's reporter: "For someone who considers himself an academic judge, what else can I do besides curse him?" In another letter to Fang Zhouzi, he expressed: "To deal with scum like you, I must abandon gentility and use even more thuggish means."
Fang Zhouzi posted "A Letter to Bastard Fang Zhouzi" on Xinyusi, indicating Yu Jianrong's lack of upbringing. Tian Song therefore commented that Yu Jianrong was very clever—in Fang Zhouzi's controlled Xinyusi territory, Yu Jianrong was one of the rare individuals who could counterattack Fang Zhouzi on Xinyusi.
After positively evaluating the significance of Fang Zhouzi's anti-fraud efforts, Tian Song indicated that after the rise of blogs around 2005 and with more open media, Fang Zhouzi's previously unique value gradually diminished.
Liu Huajie once said that Fang Zhouzi criticizes others using one standard but adopts another standard for his own actions. This double standard weakens his credibility. A clear example is that while Fang Zhouzi fights fraud, he himself is constantly accused of plagiarism, yet this behavior does not burden him psychologically.
Liu Bing believes that when Fang Zhouzi fights academic fraud, he combines "investigation, accusation, and trial" all into one role. The determination of "fraud" is not collectively determined by the academic community. "For instance, Wang Hai fights fake goods, but whether something is fake is not determined solely by Wang Hai; it is identified by independent institutions."
"For a rule-of-law society, individual morality is merely a factor influencing credibility, but it is not the most important," Liu Bing said, "even if his moral level is not problematic, does he possess sufficient professional knowledge needed to authenticate the fakes he fights against? If the moral level of the person fighting fraud is problematic, it is even more necessary for a third-party authoritative institution to conduct the authentication."
Despite this, Fang Zhouzi still retains significant influence and discourse power. In many people's minds, as a "fraud fighter" and "fraud warrior," Fang remains a symbol of justice.
In a society where counterfeit phenomena are not uncommon, public dissatisfaction with reality is one reason Fang Zhouzi gains recognition. Tian Song believes that precisely because of this, people instinctively forgive Fang Zhouzi's mistakes.
The Laozu De of the Academic World?
Many people's first impression of Fang Zhouzi is gentle, elegant, and even humble, which surprises them given his aggressive online presence.
While Fang Zhouzi was hailed as a "fraud fighter" by the media, in recent years he has increasingly clashed with the media. As of now, Xia Yu, a reporter at Southern Weekend, has had no direct dealings with Fang Zhouzi, but his name appears on the "List of Poor Journalists in China" on "Xinyusi," with the "charge" being "plagiarism."
"I imagine I have this honor based on an article online concerning my Nobel Literature Prize report in October 2009 (Herta Müller: I Am at My Desk, Not in a Shoe Store)," Xia Yu told the reporter from Legal Weekly.
Regarding the issue of plagiarism, Xia Yu said: "The Southern Weekend Professional Standards Committee had a conclusion on that report, and all parties involved also had conclusions afterward, none of which supported Fang's viewpoint."
"This 'list of poor journalists,' in the end, is just Fang privately setting up court, acting as his own judge and making his own decisions," Xia Yu said, "many names on the list are respected colleagues in the journalism field. Their personal conduct and professional ethics are clear to me, and they are not simply 'black' because someone says so, nor 'poor' because someone labels them as such."
Danyan Yan, a well-known essayist, is a "only bow to truth" tough guy whose "iron integrity" image is well known, but he also made it onto Fang's "Blacklist of Poor Journalists." It was because of the conflict between Yu Jianrong and Fang Zhouzi that Yan wrote the article "Be Wary of Fang Zhouzi, Understand Fang Zhouzi," expressing "sympathy" for Fang Zhouzi, only to suffer harm in return.
"I believe he abuses his right to speak, harming Yu Jianrong. I have expressed regretful words about him, which actually have two meanings. Primarily, I support and praise his overall anti-fraud actions, and occasional errors in specific cases are inevitable," Yan Lieshan said, "regarding his occasional overconfidence and somewhat radical writing style, I feel 'regretful.' Fang Zhouzi is a very competitive person, even the word 'regretful' is intolerable to him. So I can only express 'regret,' no need to mind."
Regarding being listed on the "Blacklist," Yan Lieshan reacted calmly: "If he says I am a 'bad journalist,' am I a 'bad journalist' then? If he were a government news publishing management agency representing officialdom and said this about me, it would be different, threatening my livelihood, and the nature would be different."
At the beginning of this year, Fang Zhouzi and Wang Fei engaged in a "verbal battle," and the controversial writer of the post-80s generation "Dugu Yi" joined the fray, describing Fang Zhouzi as the famous "big mouth" of the entertainment industry, Song Zuode. In his blog post "Fang Zhouzi's Personality and Academics Are Inferior to Song Zuode," he claims that "Fang Zhouzi's personality is scientifically inferior to Song Zuode," referring to Wuhan Huake Zhongneng Industry Co., Ltd. combating fraudsters.
On March 26th, Fang Zhouzi launched the latest online verbal battle, calling scholar Xiao Han a "shaman." The next day, Xiao Han said on Weibo: "These past years, your contributions in the anti-fraud field have been evident and commendable. The dispute between you and me yesterday and today once again reflects your lack of basic rules in public debates. Insulting language cannot make your arguments more convincing."
However, whether it is scholars who have debated with Fang Zhouzi in the past or journalists placed on Fang's "Poor Journalist" blacklist, they all adhere to Jiang Xiaoyuan's "three no principles" when approached by Legal Weekly reporters, indicating they do not wish to acknowledge Fang Zhouzi.
On March 27th, Legal Weekly reporters sent an interview outline to Fang Zhouzi's email box. The questions were quite sharp, and Fang Zhouzi quickly replied via email: "You deceitful accomplices and shameless little people are not qualified to interrogate me. After this carefully planned defamation report by Guo Guosong, Yang Yusheng, Zhu Guohua, and Ge Shen to welcome Xiao Chuanguo's release from prison, I will sue your newspaper and include you and your executive editor Guo Guosong on the list of bad journalists. Fang Zhouzi."
(Source: Legal Weekly)