There is a group of people in this country who regard themselves as the elites1 of society. They take themselves to be the most advanced part of society in China's progress toward modernity. They always try to distinguish themselves from the public by saying something special. Their most favorite tactic2 is to publish an opinion that challenges the masses' common sense. They are best at exaggerating a situation to produce a sensational3 effect.
A recent event gave them such a chance.
Fan Meizhong, a middle school teacher in Sichuan, ran away from a soon-to-collapse classroom when the earthquake struck, leaving his students behind. His act provoked widespread criticism on the Internet and in the media. Most critics remarked that he had violated the professional ethics4 of a teacher though his involuntary dodging5 of danger was understandable as a human being.
Meanwhile, quite a number of people expressed their sympathy for Fan. They placed more emphasis on the need to forgive the weaker side of human nature. They surely have reasons to hold this opinion. And it is reassuring6 to hear a different voice in the unanimous criticism against Fan, for it represents an effort to create a democratic atmosphere in the circle of critics.
Some people, however, went too far in defying the public sentiment. They challenged the mainstream7 opinion by accusing it of moral autocracy8. One of them published a commentary titled Can we become more noble by defaming Fan?
The commentator9, who gave his surname as Cao, said the critical remarks on the Internet forums10 generally demonstrated an excessively excited sentiment of moral trial. He debunked11 the online criticism as a moral campaign the pseudo moralists and young radicals12 have waged in order to erect13 a chastity arch .
These words show that Cao was targeting at the whole community of Fan's critics.
He based his argument on the assumption that everybody has the same weakness in his/her innermost soul as Fan displayed. Therefore, he said, people should not blame Fan but should instead regard him as an excusable pal14 and reflect on the human weakness together with Fan. He urged Fan's critics to approach him rather than abandon him; understand him rather than wantonly vilify15 him.
Cao was wrong in his argument at least on three points. First, not everybody will behave the same way Fan did, as suggested by Cao. This has been proved by thousands of people who bravely saved others in the quake risking their own lives.
Second, the fact that most people have the same human weakness does not mean that they are not eligible16 to criticize Fan. People condemned17 him out of their understanding of what is morally right and wrong. Do they need to do something heroic before they start criticizing Fan?
Third, Fan's critics did not blame him for being afraid of death but for ignoring his students' safety and claiming that he would even abandon his mother in the same situation.
An ugly behavior was made known to the public and the public expressed their disapproval18, or even anger, at the behavior. This is only too natural. What traces of autocracy can one find in the critical remarks? It is true that some of the critics used harsh words in denouncing Fan. But such unwanted expressions are understandable, given Fan's shameless showing off of his behavior. They are far from brandishing19 a moral club to kill Fan, as Cao alleged20 them to be in his commentary.
Like other social elites, Cao imagines himself as a safeguard of justice - to quote Cao's own words in his criticism of Fan's critics - and tries to teach the public a lesson about democracy and human rights. Regrettably, the public do not want to hear their garrulous21 preaching; they have seen through the hypocrites.
