Source: OT-Team(G), 潇湘晨报; 封面新闻; 观察者网
A proposed disciplinary decision published by the Student Affairs Office of Dalian Polytechnic University has ignited intense public debate across Chinese social media platforms.
A proposed disciplinary action issued by the Student Affairs Office of Dalian Polytechnic University (DPU) has ignited widespread controversy on Chinese social media platforms, drawing public attention to the university's disciplinary standards, privacy practices, and the boundary between personal morality and institutional governance.
University Moves to Expel Student Li for Alleged Improper Conduct
On July 8, DPU published a notice on its official Student Affairs website stating its intention to expel a student, referred to as Li, from the university. The announcement cited "improper conduct on December 16, 2024, which caused a severely negative social impact" as the basis for this decision. The university cited Article 30(6) of the Regulations on the Administration of Students in Regular Higher Education Institutions and Article 19(6) of the university's own disciplinary code as legal grounds for the punishment.
The university stated that it had previously delivered a formal notice of the proposed disciplinary action to Li between April 15 and 24, 2025, through various means including direct service, postal mail, and retention delivery. As Li reportedly failed to respond, the university opted to serve the notice via public announcement, which will be considered legally delivered after 60 days.
Notably, the official announcement published Li's full name, raising additional privacy concerns. The cited university regulation—Article 19(6) of DPU's code—includes language stating that "inappropriate relationships with foreigners that damage national dignity or the university's reputation" can result in disciplinary actions ranging from demerits to expulsion.
Background: Viral Scandal During Esports Tournament
Media reports have linked the disciplinary action to a scandal involving Ukrainian esports figure Zeus (real name Daniil Teslenko), during the Perfect World CS2 Shanghai Major in December 2024. At the time, Zeus posted an intimate video of himself and a Chinese woman—allegedly Li—into a fan chat group, sparking widespread outrage and moral debate online.
Zeus, a 37-year-old former Counter-Strike professional who retired in 2019 and returned in 2024 as a team coach, was scheduled to participate in an exhibition match during the tournament. While online rumors suggest he may be married and have a daughter, neither Zeus nor official sources have confirmed his marital status. A British esports outlet once mentioned the birth of his daughter in 2011 as a reason for his team's withdrawal from a tournament, though this information remains unverified.
Social Media Reactions: Public Opinion Deeply Divided
The case has sparked fierce debate among Chinese netizens. Supporters of the university's action argue that institutions have the right to enforce codes of conduct to maintain order on campus. They believe Li's actions, which were widely circulated online, undermined public morals and contributed to the harmful stereotype of "worshipping foreigners," thus justifying expulsion.
Opponents, however, argue that Li's conduct did not violate any national law and falls into the realm of private morality. They stress that she was a victim whose intimate video was shared without consent, and that punishing her so harshly reflects institutional overreach. Critics further contend that DPU's disciplinary regulations are vaguely worded and excessively conservative—some reportedly even prohibit premarital sex and the viewing of explicit content—raising questions about their appropriateness in a modern university setting.
The university has not confirmed whether the disciplinary action is directly linked to the Zeus incident. However, the public perceives a strong correlation due to the timeline and language used in the announcement.
Legal Experts Question Legitimacy of Expulsion
On July 13, multiple legal scholars and attorneys expressed serious doubts about the legal validity of DPU's decision. They noted that the university cited Article 30 of national student regulations—governing voluntary or medically necessary withdrawals—as the legal basis for expulsion. However, expulsion due to disciplinary violations should be governed by Article 52, which outlines specific conditions such as criminal offenses or serious academic misconduct.
"The nature and consequences of withdrawal and expulsion are fundamentally different," one lawyer explained. "Withdrawal is typically administrative and non-punitive, while expulsion carries a stigma that can affect future education, employment, and even international travel."
Legal experts emphasized that Li's alleged behavior—non-marital sexual activity off-campus—does not meet the criteria under Article 52 for expulsion, which includes actions like constitutional violations, criminal convictions, and severe disruption to school order.
Even the interpretation that Li's actions "seriously affected school order" fails scrutiny, argued Dr. Chen, an associate professor of criminal law. "The conduct occurred off-campus and had no direct bearing on school operations. If there was any disruption, it came from the unauthorized dissemination of the video, not from Li herself," he said.
Privacy Concerns: University's Public Naming of Student Raises Red Flags
Beyond the legality of the expulsion, the university's decision to publish Li's full name in the public notice has raised alarms about privacy violations. According to Article 1032(2) of China's Civil Code, privacy includes private spaces, activities, and information that individuals do not wish to disclose.
"Even if a student violates university rules, disclosing personal details—especially involving intimate conduct—via public announcement violates their privacy," said Dr. Chen.
Legal experts pointed to the Measures for Information Disclosure in Higher Education Institutions, which mandate that student information must be disclosed only when it serves a significant public interest and only with appropriate redactions or anonymization. DPU's full disclosure of Li's name and the reason for her proposed expulsion, which was then widely republished by media outlets, has led to online abuse, emotional distress, and reputational damage for the student.
"The university has not only failed to protect its student but has instead made her the target of public condemnation," one attorney noted. "She has grounds to pursue civil litigation against both the university and any media outlets that published her identity without consent."
Broader Implications: Moral Policing or Institutional Protection?
The controversy surrounding DPU's disciplinary notice has sparked national reflection on the limits of institutional authority in student governance. As higher education in China grapples with the tension between traditional morality and evolving societal norms, the case of Li raises urgent questions about proportionality, due process, and the role of universities in regulating students' private lives.
While DPU may have acted in response to the reputational damage caused by the viral video, critics argue the university's approach was punitive and misdirected. Rather than protecting a student whose privacy was egregiously violated, the institution appears to have penalized her for a scandal she did not initiate.
As the debate unfolds, the case stands as a potent reminder of the ethical responsibilities educational institutions bear—not just to uphold rules, but also to protect the dignity and rights of their students.
No comments:
Post a Comment