Control of the cultural, social, legal and institutional narrative of political societies has emerged as the great issue for national vanguards in the early part of the 21st Century. In the United States, national vanguards have been deeply divided since the start of the great American cultural wars that appears in retrospect to have been started after 1945 and whose manifestations as cultural politics took their current form from the 1960s. Its most spectacular manifestations have been the great battles over the control of the national narrative in the education of the young in the great textbook wars that have engrossed its intellectual and political elites for a generation (see here, and here), and lately, in the ability to develop the veiled language necessary to control discussion in the university to suit that portion of the vanguard in control of specific institution and the foundation of those discussions in the highly ambiguous context of inclusion and exclusion with political dimension (e.g., here, here, and here). The vanguard in the United States tend to be driven by malleable private coalitions of intellectuals and factional political leaders drawn from various societal sectors.
In China, in contrast, the Communist Party serves as the official vanguard. It has been charged to ensure the development and protection of a national narrative that conforms to its Basic Line; and to ensure as well that this Basic line conforms to the political and economic model from which it derives its authority and legitimacy. Since the start of the leadership of Xi Jinping, the CPC appears to have been paying increasing attention to the development of the social and cultural forces of China, as past generations had paid to the development of its economic forces. That development, in part, has centered on the role of the vanguard in shaping and protecting the nation's economic and political model through the development of its societal and cultural model. To tat end, the role of education has again moved to center stage, and the relationship of intellectuals (as producers of knowledge dissemination tools) increasingly subject to discipline to ensure that the mechanics of knowledge dissemination conform to the ideological premises of the political and economic model.
To that point, the roles leadership elites in both the United States and China are remarkably similar in function. Where the substantial differences arise is in the allocation of authority for the assertion of social and cultural leadership, and the disciplining of intellectuals and their followers who are perceived to seek to undermine leadership guidance in matters of political, social, economic, and cultural narrative through which children (and the society in general) will be appropriately socialized. More importantly, the differences in disciplining intellectuals, while undertaken through social networks a few steps separated from the apparatus of formal politics, in China the relationship s direct, both formal and informal.
Recently, the issue of the control of the narrative in law--and especially in the teaching of constitutional law--in China burst onto the public consciousness when the state began what appeared to be a comprehensive review of textbooks in January 2019.
The resulting controversy has brought to foreground critical points of potential change in the way in which constitutional narratives are constructed, and thus constructed, taught to rising generations of Chinese leaders. It suggests as well changes in the relationship between the political vanguard and its intellectuals, and the increasingly important role of knowledge narrative in the construction and operation of the (post)modern state through its vanguards.
At the start of January, the office of the National Teaching Material Committee issued the “Notice Concerning the Launch of Comprehensive Fact-finding Work on University Constitutional Law Teaching Materials.” The notice required all colleges and universities to thoroughly explore the constitutional law material they were currently using and submit their findings to the Ministry of Education Textbook Office by January 15. . . . Meanwhile, there have been rumors that University of Political Science and Law Professor Ke Huaqing denounced several constitutional law scholars for participating in compiling a constitutional law textbook that “adulated the West.” . . . The teaching material denounced online included “Introduction to Constitutional Law: Theory and Application” compiled and edited by Peking University Law professor and constitutional law scholar Zhang Qianfan. . . . The National Textbook Committee’s notice led to a heated debate. (From China Digital Times Translation).
The resulting controversy has brought to foreground critical points of potential change in the way in which constitutional narratives are constructed, and thus constructed, taught to rising generations of Chinese leaders. It suggests as well changes in the relationship between the political vanguard and its intellectuals, and the increasingly important role of knowledge narrative in the construction and operation of the (post)modern state through its vanguards.
Recently, Tong Zhiwei, one of the most eminent constitutional law experts in China, provided his views on the issues raised by the controversy over the state of Chinese constitutional textbooks. These viewed were presented in the form of an interview on the fundamental issues of the need both to rigorously produce knowledge and to disseminate it within the constraints of the meta narrative of the political system with respect to which deference is necessary. The conversation is subtle and brimming with those issues that are central to the Chinese conversation but also quite relevant to the societal practices of American vanguards in the control and protection of their own narratives and the disciplining of those who deviate from the American elite party line.
The text of that interview (中文 with crude English translation) along with background reporting from Reuters (English), follows. Also useful is an interview with Professor Zhang Qianfan, in which he defends a broader study of constitutional law "as an essential endeavor for the betterment of Chinese society" (English) (中文). For a taste of Zhang Qianfan's work in English see here.
更新于2019年3月6日 07:05 华东政法大学教授 童之伟 为FT中文网撰稿
最近，有人针对中国高校的宪法学教材之争提出了一些问题，希望我做出澄清。我的本意，也想借此机会对这个被搅得沸沸扬扬的事情从专业角度理性、平衡地做些评论。下面是提问（Q）和我对提问的回答（A）。
Updated on March 6, 2019 07:05 Professor of East China University of Political Science and Law Tong Zhiwei Written for FT中文网
Recently, some people have raised some questions about the constitutional textbook disputes in Chinese universities and hope that I can clarify. My intention is to take this opportunity to make a rational and balanced comment on this controversial thing from a professional perspective. Below is the question (Q) and my answer to the question (A).
Q：请问您怎么看待中国教育部近期开展的“高校宪法学教材全面摸底”工作？
Q: May I ask how you see the "constitutional College Textbooks comprehensive diagnostic" work Chinese Ministry of Education recently launched?
A：我已注意到“国家教材委员会办公室下发了《关于开展高校宪法学教材全面摸底工作的通知》，决定对高校宪法学教材开展全面摸底工作”的报道。根据报道，“摸底工作”的主要任务是摸清楚“对普通高等学校本专科生、硕士生、博士生以及预科生正在使用的宪法学教材”，基本要求是“高度重视，认真组织，切实做好宪法学教材全面摸底工作，务求全覆盖、无遗漏，数据真实准确。”
我来上海高校任教近20年了，先在上海交大，后到华东政法大学，一直是宪法学科的带头人，我个人的感觉是，对法学院校使用的宪法学教材进行摸底，非常有必要。这首先是因为，不同名称的宪法学教材、准教材种类太多、学术水平和编写质量良莠不齐。要解决由此造成的弊端，有必要摸底，然后对症下药，才可能对教材的使用有所规范，保证宪法学教学的质量或学术水准。
不过，中国的宪法学教材，主要是针对本科生的，针对专科生、硕士生的极少，针对博士生的几乎没有。
A: I have noticed that the “National Textbook Committee Office issued the “Notice on Carrying out the Comprehensive Mapping of the Constitution Textbooks in Colleges and Universities” and decided to carry out a comprehensive survey of the constitutional textbooks of colleges and universities”. According to reports, the main task of “searching at the bottom” is to find out whether “the constitutional textbooks that are being used by undergraduate, master, doctoral, and prep students in ordinary colleges and universities.” The basic requirement is that they are “paid high levels of attentions to, carefully organized, and effectively carry out good and conprehensive survey of constitutional textbooks, so that there is full coverage of issues, no omissions, and true and accurate data."
I have been teaching in universities in Shanghai for nearly 20 years. I first went to Shanghai Jiaotong University and then to East China University of Political Science and Law and I have always been the leader of the constitutional discipline. My personal feeling is that it is very necessary to examine constitutional textbooks used by law schools. This is first of all because there are too many types of constitutional textbooks and quasi-textbooks of different names, and the academic level and quality of writing are mixed. To solve the shortcomings caused by this, it is necessary to find the lowest quality texts, and then correct them so that in this way it would be possible to regulate the use of teaching materials, to ensure the quality or academic standards of constitutional teaching.
However, China's constitutional textbooks are mainly aimed at undergraduates, and there are very few college students and master students, and there is almost no constitutional textbook for doctoral students.
Q：宪法学教材“摸底”是针对中国高校的什么课程？是否想要清理跟西方宪法制度有关的内容？
What is the course in Chinese colleges and universities targeted by this survey? Do they want to clean up content related to the Western constitutional system?
A：摸底宪法学教材，当然主要针对高校的宪法学课程。宪法学教材摸底会有多重目的，其中首先应该是提升和保障宪法学教学的质量或水准。
至于说到清理与宪法学教材中西方宪法制度有关的内容，我相信也是摸底的目的之一。不过，清理不同于清查，不能有误解。在中国，如何看待西方宪法制度，既是政治领域的问题，也是学术问题，很难截然分开。说它属政治问题，主要是因为宪法学教材对西方宪法制度要有一个符合马克思主义基本原理的态度，既不能把它说得比封建专制制度还坏、全盘否定，也不能脱离中国实际情况主张照抄照搬，更不应以西方宪法制度为基准否定社会主义宪法制度。说它是学术问题，是因为宪法学教材对西方宪法制度的论述，有一些诸如此类的问题需要处理好：文字描述是否背离西方真实情况，西方各种具体宪法现象之间的真实关系，对西方宪法现象的内部外部联系的揭示是否充分、评价是否妥当，等等。
我想，中国教育行政部门对宪法学教材做摸底，至少包括两个目的：一是清理现有宪法学教材，在此基础上促使新的宪法学教材端正对西方宪法制度的政治态度；二是提升对西方宪法制度的描述质量和对西方宪法现象及其内部外部联系的认识水准。
当然，在政治层面判断宪法学教材对西方宪法制度的态度是否端正，有一个基准问题。应该说，在中国的不同发展阶段，官方设定的基准不是、也不可能是一成不变的。不过，宪法学者谈论相关问题，主要只能基于实事求是的态度和马克思主义在相关方面的一般原理，不好一味地揣摩领导层的意图，跟风跑。
A: The survey is targeting constitutional textbooks and thus naturally aimed at the constitutional courses of colleges and universities. The survey on constitutional textbooks will have multiple purposes, the first of which should be to improve and guarantee the quality or standard of constitutional teaching.
As for the content related to the cleanup of the Western constitutional system in the constitutional textbooks, I believe that it is also one of the purposes of the survey. However, there is a huge difference between clean-up and survey (in Chinese they are similiar words), there can be misunderstandings. In China, how to treat the Western constitutional system is both a political issue and an academic issue, and it is difficult to separate them from each other. It is a political issue, mainly because the constitutional textbooks must have an attitude that conforms to the basic principles of Marxism in the Western constitutional system. It cannot be said to be worse than the feudal autocracy, completely negated, and cannot be totally copied to China without consideration of the actual situation in China, neither should it deny the socialist constitutional system on the basis of the Western constitutional system. It is an academic issue because that there are some such issues that need to be dealt with well in the narration in constitutional textbooks on the Western constitutional system: whether the textual description deviates from the real situation in the West, the true relationship between various specific constitutional phenomena in the West, and the Western Constitution. Whether the internal and external connections of the phenomenon are sufficient, whether the evaluation is appropriate, and so on.
I think that the Chinese education administration has done a minimum of two objectives for the survey on constitutional textbooks: one is to clean up the existing constitutional textbooks, and on this basis, the new constitutional textbooks are correcting the political attitude towards the Western constitutional system; the second one is to improve the quality of the description of the Western constitutional system and the level of understanding of Western constitutional phenomena and their internal and external connections.
Of course, there is a benchmark issue in judging whether the attitude of constitutional textbooks to the Western constitutional system is correct at the political level. It should be said that at different stages of development in China, the official benchmarks are not, and cannot be, static. However, when constitutional scholars talk about related issues, they should be mainly based on the attitude of seeking truth from facts and the general principles of Marxism in related aspects instead of trying to figure out the intentions of the leadership and follow the trend.
Q：我很好奇您对网络上流传的“柯华庆教授举报宪法学教材”事件的看法。这个举报事件真的发生了吗？
Q: I am very curious about your views on the "Ke Huaqing's report on constitutional textbooks" circulating on the Internet. Did this report incident really happen?
A：我理解，您是想让我谈谈对网传“柯华庆教授举报宪法学教材”事件的看法。行，先回答“这个举报事件真的发生了吗？”我在网上已读到了我能够读到的全部材料。我得说，我对“举报”这个说法的真实性还没有把握。综合各种信息，实际的情况更像是这样的：中国政法大学的柯华庆教授想要对现有各种宪法教材做些评价，并把结论向中国领导层反映一下，其本意似乎是传递自己的看法，本身没有举报之名，但客观上产生了一些举报的效果。
对网传“柯华庆教授举报宪法学教材”事件本身，我的看法分两个方面。
从柯教授所学专业和从事的主要职业（哲学兼法理）看，他从意识形态角度关注和关心中国现有各种宪法学教材对西方宪法制度政治态度的端正程度并做出评估，选择以专报之类形式向中央领导层呈送评论意见，是他行使基本权利的表现，属正当行为。如果确实是柯教授此举催生了国家教材委员会决定对高校宪法学教材做全面摸底，这应该算他此举产生的一个正面的社会效益。
但另一方面，从柯教授所任职的机构公布的简历和发表情况看，他在哲学方面受到的教育和发表情况都不错，但却并无就读于法学专业或与法学相近专业的学历，其职业活动和研究成果主要也不在法学、宪法学领域，未在主流法学期刊发表过研究型法学论文（有少许评论型文章）。这些因素决定了柯教授对宪法学教材做学术评价的专业资质从而其评价结论的可信度都是不够的。法学在世界范围内都是高度专业化的学科，而在全部法学学科中，宪法学相对来说属最为博大精深的极少数二级学科之一。
看起来容易但真正弄懂极难，是宪法学的一大特点。宪法就其文本看，大都是些抽象的原理原则，大而化之，似乎识字就行，是人都懂，没什么难处。但须知，在通常的法治国家，这些原理原则的真实、具体含义都是通过刑法、民商法、行政法、诉讼法和国际法等具体部门法体现的，因此，若对具体部门法、部门法学没有系统全面和较深入了解，就根本不可能真正懂宪法和宪法学。所以，那种完全没有法学专业或相近专业的学历，而又没有长期从事宪法学教学和研究的人士，其爱好宪法学之精神固然可嘉，但绝对不宜充任或视之为宪法学者或宪法专家，否则极可能误自己、误学生，有害于社会。
再说，宪法学科内容以限制公权力、保障基本人权或公民基本权利为根本，生长在民主法治传统缺乏的中国政法文化环境中的中青年，不经过多年的宪法学专业教育或专业熏陶，不可能确立牢固的权力限制和基本人权保障意识。而缺乏这种基础性专业意识，只在宪法条款上作文章，宪法学教学和研究极容易背离宪法精神，甚至直接走向其反面。走向宪法精神之反面在学术圈的典型表现，就是少数学者以宪法之名无底线助长权力滥用，无底线支持对宪定公民基本权利的忽视、克减、否认或剥夺。
我说这些是想要证明，对于宪法学教材优劣或内容是否恰当之类的学术争议，教育行政等公权力组织如果要介入的话，他们最好基于学术或专业的标准来推进和做判断。例如，由中国宪法学研究会或由中国法学会内设的学术组织来做评鉴，就是比较好的选择。
当然，基于言论自由，任何人都有权谈论宪法、宪法学，外行完全可以评价内行。但官方机构介入后情况就不同了，他们在听取意见做决定时，不宜将宪法学业余爱好者的意见作为他们对有关宪法学作品做评鉴的基础或根据。这正如文科出身的自然辩证法教师或思政课教师虽可以写评论爱因斯坦相对论的文章，但政府在聘用人员时却不宜把这些教师当物理学家对待一样的道理。
不过，就柯教授或任何其他人而言，他如果决意从哲学改行做宪法学，那可能是好事，但肯定得改变现在留给法学界的那种新闯进宪法学领域的无知无畏革命造反小将形象，努力做马克思所说的“不畏劳苦沿着崎岖陡峭的山路攀登的人”。我想，柯教授没有也不会有到宪法学领域来打破学术伦理底线走捷径、搞“弯道超车”的想法。
A: I understand that you want me to talk about the views of the internet rumor of Professor Ke Huaqing's report on constitutional textbooks. OK, I will first answer the question of “Is this reporting incident really happening?” I have read all the materials I can read on the Internet. I have to say that I am not sure about the authenticity of the "report". Combining various information, the actual situation is more like this: Professor Ke Huaqing of China University of Political Science and Law wanted to make some comments on the state of existing constitutional textbooks and submitted the conclusions to the Chinese leadership. The original intention seems to be to pass on his own views without any intention of making a“report”. The formal object itself was not to report or denounce in nature, but objectively it has produced some real effects of making a “report”.
My opinion on the online discussion of Professor Ke Huaqing’s “report” on constitutional textbooks is divided into two aspects.
From the perspective of the field (philosophy and jurisprudence) studied by Professor Ke, he pays attention to the correctness of the political attitudes of the various constitutional textbooks in China to the Western constitutional system from the perspective of ideology. And using the form of special reports and other forms of submission to convey his opinions to the central leadership is a manifestation of his exercise of basic rights and is a legitimate act. If that was indeed Professor Ke’s intention, the resulting decision of the National Textbook Committee to make a comprehensive examination of the constitutional textbooks of colleges and universities should be regarded as a positive social benefit yielded from his actions.
On the other hand, from the resumes and publications published by the institution where Professor Ke is working, he has received a good education and have a nice list of publications in philosophy, but he does not have a degree in law or education experience close to law, neither his professional activities and research outcomes mainly in the field of law and constitutional law, and he also has not published research-type law papers (with a few commentary articles) in mainstream legal journals. These factors lead to insufficient professional qualifications of Professor Ke and thus the credibility of his evaluation conclusions is not enough. Law is a highly specialized discipline in the world, and among all legal disciplines, constitutional science is one of the most profound and complicated secondary disciplines.
It is a major feature of constitutional law that it seems easy but it is extremely difficult to understand it. As far as the text is concerned, the Constitution is mostly a set of abstract principles. It seems that there is no difficulty for any people who reads to understand.. However, it should be noted that in the ordinary countries ruled by law, the true and specific meanings of these principle principles are reflected in specific departmental laws such as criminal law, civil and commercial law, administrative law, procedural law and international law. Therefore, if there is no deepened understanding of specific departmental law or departmental law with a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the system, it is impossible to truly understand the constitution and constitutional law. Therefore, for those who do not have a legal education or a similar professional qualification, neither been engaged in constitutional teaching and research for a long time, their eager to enjoy the constitutional spirit is admirable but they are absolutely not suited to take the position of a constitutional expert, nor are they able to be regarded as constitutional scholars or constitutional experts. Otherwise, it is very possible to mistake themselves, mislead students, and harm society.
Furthermore, the content of the constitutional law studies is based on the restriction of public power, the protection of basic human rights or the basic rights of citizens. And it is impossible for a young man who is born in the Chinese political and legal cultural environment lacking in the tradition of democracy and the rule of law without years of constitutional professional education or professional education. Neither would it be possible to establish a strong awareness of power limit and a basic awareness of human rights protection. The lack of this basic professional awareness and only focusing on the constitutional provisions will make the constitutional teaching and research deviate from the spirit of the constitution, and even directly go to the opposite side of what a constitutional law designed to do. The typical manifestation of the anti-constitutional spirit in the academic circle is that a few scholars have no bottom line in the name of the constitution to promote abuse of power, and no bottom line to support the neglect, derogation, denial or deprivation of the basic rights of constitutional citizens.
I say this to suggest that if there is an academic dispute about the merits or the content of the constitutional textbooks, public administrations such as education administration should advance and judge based on academic or professional standards. For example, an evaluation by the Chinese Constitutional Research Society or an academic organization established by the Chinese Law Society is a better choice.
Of course, based on freedom of speech, anyone has the right to talk about constitutional and constitutional studies, and laymen can fully evaluate the experts as they like. However, in terms of public authority interventions, the situation is different. When they listen to opinions and make decisions, it is not appropriate to use the opinions of constitutional amateurs as the basis for their evaluation of constitutional works. This is just as a natural dialectic teacher or a philosophical teacher from the liberal arts can write an article on Einstein's theory of relativity, but the government should not treat these teachers as physicists when hiring people.
However, as far as Professor Ke or anyone else is concerned, if he decides to switch from the field of philosophy to the field constitutional law, it may be a good thing. But if that is so then he might have to undertake to change the image of the ignorant and fearless revolutionary rebellious teenager who is now left to the legal profession in the field of constitutional law, and strive to do what Marx said as "people who are not afraid to work hard along the rugged and steep mountain roads." I think that Professor Ke does not have the idea of breaking the path of academic ethics and breaking the path of "overtaking the curve".
Q：据网络上的信息，一些宪法教材之所以被举报，原因是含有“宣扬西方思鼓吹西方制度”的内容。你怎么看待这种说法？
Q: According to the information on the Internet, some constitutional textbooks have been reported because of the content of “promoting Western thinking and advocating the Western system”. What do you think of this statement?
A：关于举报原因，如果确实是这么写的，那我得说，这些说法都不严谨、不专业，甚至缺乏确定的意思。“宣扬” “鼓吹” “西方思想”“西方制度”在特定语境下都是含义宽泛、夸张而主观性极强的贬义词。就平实的含义而言，“西方思想”不过是欧美等地域的具体宪法学者的具体观点，“西方制度”也只能是欧美等地域的国家宪法制度中的具体规范性安排。对西方宪法制度，中国官方的立场一直是：“积极借鉴人类政治文明有益成果”，“借鉴国外法治有益经验”，但“绝不照搬西方政治制度模式”。其实，中国人祖上并没有宪法，宪法本身就是自西方泊来的，人大制度所属的代议制度也源自西方，这都是常识。
但是，我们一旦标签化地将欧美宪政思想和宪政制度的各种具体内容归类于“西方思想”“西方制度”后，在有关论述者特定的语境下实际上就是全盘否定了它们，而这种全盘否定的倾向既背离马克思主义一般原理，也同中国执政党向国内外郑重宣告的政策原则相冲突。在平实的意义上说，“宣扬”“鼓吹”无外乎是“介绍了”或“讲到了并给予了较高评价”的意思。我们要搞改革开放，介绍、讲到欧美宪法学者的思想和宪法制度，是有必要的，有时甚至是必须的。而“宣扬”“鼓吹”这些词的运用，本身就完全否认了介绍欧美宪法学者思想、宪法制度和实事求是评价欧美宪法学者思想、宪法制度的必要性。所以，“宣扬”“鼓吹”这些词语用在这种场合，本身属于极端言论。
或许有学者认为，现有的某种宪法教材介绍欧美宪法学者思想的文字量过大，介绍欧美宪法制度的内容偏多、对之评价偏高。对这类可能有的、确实属于不妥当的情况，有关学者的合理态度应当是提出压缩篇幅、压缩文字量或适度调整评价语言的具体看法和理由，在学术界商榷讨论形成共识，然后修改教材。完全没必要用老旧的大批判式的极端言论在政治层面上纲上线。
我注意到，似乎有学者不仅提出相关宪法学教材“宣扬西方思想、鼓吹西方制度”，还认为有的宪法学者“以宪法之名干‘革命’之事”，这就更离谱了。因为，这从政治上说，前者是指控他人违反四项基本原则，后者等于指控他人言论涉嫌颠覆国家政权罪或煽动颠覆国家政权罪了。须知，这种指控会让人轻者丢饭碗失生计，重者坐牢甚至失去生命。学者就其职业性质和谋生方式来说，秉性应该是相对本分、厚道的，不能太凶悍，要避免把一个寻常的职业场弄成生死场。职业场虽难免有竞争，但不应把竞争升级到生死斗争。
中国宪法学教材少说也有三四十种（包括我自己主编和华东政法大学一度使用的），其种类远远多于美英等宪法学发达国家。我注意到，所有这些宪法教材虽然质量或学术水平差异很大，但在政治上都很平和、谨慎，完全不存在刻意“宣扬西方思想、鼓吹西方制度”的情况。中国高校的宪法教材，编写过程中有主编、副主编、参编人员的严格自我审查，完稿后有出版社对之进行的极严格的三级审查，使用过程中还要受到法学师生的严格评判和社会监督，几乎完全不可能出现“宣扬西方思想、鼓吹西方制度”这类政治错误。网传柯教授提到的那三个“等级”的宪法学教材，我都很熟悉，我认为它们都属于中国高校使用的宪法教材中质量较好、水平较高的品种，看不出有明显政治性错误。
任何宪法都是具体国家的宪法，宪法学应该、也只能是具体国家的宪法学。英国、美国是典型的宪法学大国，英美国家的宪法学无一例外都完全或基本只讲授本国宪法的形成、变迁和讨论本国宪法的实施问题。但是，像中国这样的宪法和宪法学最初都是海外舶来品的宪制后发达国家，宪法学不可能像英美那样，不可能不讲宪法和宪法学“原创”阶段的情况及其后续发展。所以，按同样的标准，中国宪法学在内容方面承担的主要的任务，就是在交代清宪法来龙去脉的基础上，讲清楚中国现行宪法的规范性要求及其实施情况，探讨改善、促进现行宪法全面有效实施的方法、路径。
按上述标准衡量，前述“三个等级”的宪法学教材又都程度不同地存在一些弊端：有的较明显脱离中国经济、政治生活和改革实际，甚至遗漏中国宪法文本的不少重要规范性内容；有的关照面虽完整，但却政治宣示味过浓，学理性不足，体例呆板；等等。这三个“等级”的宪法学教材还有一个共同的突出弊病：都没能事实求是描述或解说大量现实的宪法性争议和冲突，尤其在公民基本权利保障和执政党与国家机关关系这两大领域内。所以，在我看来，中国到现在还没有产生过一种能基本符合宪法学客观要求、实事求是地面对中国实际的优秀宪法学教材。或许有人会问：你怎样评价你自己主编和在贵校使用的宪法学教材？坦率地说，由于种种客观因素带来的局限性，我自己主编的宪法学教材在质量上也很一般，学术水平不会高于那三个“等级”的。
还要补充一句：由于前述宪法学教材批评者只是宪法学业余爱好者，并非严格意义上的宪法专家或宪法学家，故他批评最厉害的宪法学作品不一定真是很差的，他赞扬的宪法学产品也不一定真是很好的。同理，那种认为被他批评过的宪法学教材一定是最好的宪法学产品的看法，也没有任何道理。
A: Regarding the reasons for the report, if it is indeed written, then I have to say that these statements are not rigorous, they are unprofessional, and even lack a certain meaning. "Promotion" "Advocacy" "Western Thought" "Western System" is a derogatory term with broad meaning, exaggeration and subjectivity in a specific context. As far as the plain meaning is concerned, "Western thought" is only a specific viewpoint of specific constitutional scholars in Europe and the United States. The "Western system" can only be a specific normative arrangement in the national constitutional system of Europe and the United States. For the Western constitutional system, China’s official position has always been: “actively draw on the beneficial results of human political civilization” and “learn from the useful experience of foreign rule of law”, but “never copy the Western political system model”. In fact, there is no concept of constitution in the Chinese past. The forms of the Constitution itself is imported from the West. The representative system of the NPC system also originates from the West. This is common sense.
However, once we label the various specific contents of European and American constitutional thoughts and constitutional systems into "Western thoughts" and "Western institutions", in the context of the specific context of the arguers, they actually negated them in their entirety. This tendency of total negation is contrary to the general principles of Marxism and to the policy principles that the Chinese ruling party has solemnly declared at home and abroad. In a plain sense, “promoting” and “advocating” is nothing more than “introducing” or “speaking and giving a positive evaluation”. We must engage in reform and opening up and thus it is importatant and sometimes necessary to introduce and talk about the ideas and constitutional systems of European and American constitutional scholars. The use of these words "promoting" and "advocating" completely denies the necessity of introducing the thoughts of the European and American constitutional scholars, the constitutional system, and evaluate the ideas and constitutional systems of European and American constitutional scholars by seeking truth from facts . Therefore, the words "promoting" and "advocating" are used in such occasions and are themselves extreme statements.
Some scholars believe that the existing textbooks of some kinds of constitutional textbooks spend too much words introducing the words of European and American constitutional scholars and introduce the content of the European and American constitutional systems, and also the evaluation of them is too high. For such cases that may be inappropriate, the reasonable attitude of the relevant scholars should be to put forward specific views and reasons for compressing the length, compressing the amount of text or moderately adjusting the evaluation language, discussing and forming consensus in the academic circles, and then modifying the teaching materials. There is absolutely no need to use the old and extremely critical extreme remarks on the political level.
I have noticed that it seems that some scholars not only propose relevant constitutional textbooks to "promote Western thoughts and advocate Western institutions", but also believe that some constitutional scholars "engage in "revolution" in the name of the constitution", which is even more outrageous. Because politically speaking, the former is accused of people violating the four cardinal principles, and the latter is tantamount to accusing others of the crime of alleged subversion of state power or inciting subversion of state power. It should be noted that such allegations will make people lose their jobs, end up in jail and even lose their lives. In terms of their professional nature and way of earning a living, scholars should be relatively loyal and kind. Scholars should not be too fierce, and should avoid making an ordinary career field a life and death struggle. Although it is inevitable that there will be competition in the professional field, it should not be escalated to the struggle between life and death.
There are also thirty or forty kinds of Chinese constitutional textbooks (including my own editor and the East China University of Political Science and Law), which are far more diverse than countries such as the United States and Britain where the constitutional law studies is relatively more developed. I have noticed that although all these constitutional textbooks vary greatly in quality or academic level, they are politically peaceful and cautious, and there is no such thing as deliberately "proclaiming Western thoughts and advocating Western institutions." In the process of compiling the constitutional textbooks of Chinese universities, there are strict self-censorship of chief editors, deputy editors, and editors. After the completion of the draft, there is a very strict three-level review conducted by the publishing house, and the use of the textbook is also strictly supervised and judged upon by law teachers and students. It is almost impossible to have political mistakes such as “promoting Western thoughts and advocating Western institutions”. I am familiar with the three "levels" of constitutional textbooks mentioned by Professor Net Chuan. I think they are constitutional textbooks with relatively higher qualities used by Chinese universities and no political mistakes are seen.
Any constitution is a constitution of a specific country, and constitutional law should be only a constitutional law of a specific country. The United Kingdom and the United States are typical constitutional powers. Both the constitutional law studies of the United Kingdom and the United States, all without exception, fully or simply teach the formation and changes of their own constitutions and discuss the implementation of their own constitutions. However, constitutional and constitutional studies in countries such as China there the term were originally constitutional post-developed countries with foreign imports cannot be like the United States and the United States. It is impossible to ignore the situation of the "original" stage of constitution and constitutional studies and its subsequent development. Therefore, according to the same standard, the main task of Chinese constitutional law in terms of content is to explain the normative requirements of China’s current constitution and its implementation on the basis of explaining the ins and outs of the constitution, and to explore ways to improve and promote the current constitution, lastly locate the method and path for effective implementation.
According to the above criteria, the above-mentioned "three levels" of constitutional textbooks have some disadvantages in different degrees: some are more clearly separated from China's economy, political life and reform reality, and even miss many important normative contents of the Chinese constitutional text. For some others, even though the coverage are complete, the meaning of political propaganda might be too strong and there might be a lack of academic rationality, the system of cases is awkward; and so on. These three "levels" of constitutional law textbooks also have a common prominence: they are not able to describe or explain a large number of realistic constitutional disputes and conflicts, especially in the two major areas of protection of basic rights of citizens and the relationship between the ruling and state organs. Therefore, in my opinion, China has not yet seen an excellent constitutional textbook that can basically meet the objective requirements of constitutional law and seek truth from facts to face China's reality. Some people may ask: How do you evaluate the constitutional textbooks edited by yourself and used in your own school? Frankly speaking, due to the limitations of various objective factors, my own constitutional textbooks are also very limited in quality, and the academic level will not be higher than the textbooks of three "levels" mentioned above.
I would also like to add that since the critics of the aforementioned constitutional textbooks are only amateurs of constitutional law, not constitutional experts or constitutionalists in the strict sense. The constitutional works that got laymen’s the most criticize is not necessarily very bad, those got laymen’s most praise are not necessarily very good either. By the same token, there is no reason to believe that the constitutional textbook that has been criticized by laymen must be the best constitutional product.
Q：这种说法是否算把宪法学政治化？
Q: Is this statement politicizing constitutional law?
A：宪法是民主政治的制度化。因此，宪法学要研究政治问题，会肯定一些政治元素或否定一些政治元素，会有利于或有损于一些政治关系主体的利益，因而不能完全与政治绝缘。但是，承认宪法学不能与政治绝缘，并不等于说搞政治与做宪法学术不应相对区分开来，实际上两者是应该尽可能严格地加以区分的。在当代中国的语境中，政治的核心是巩固政治统治地位的需要，而社会科学学术活动的核心内容是从学理上揭示或还原事物的各种内在和外在联系。从这个意义上说，将宪法学政治化，就是不顾真实情况，违背事实求是精神，按政治上据统治地位的社会集团的需要来任意解说宪法现象的各种内在和外在联系。
将宪法学政治化是否可取？我觉得这不好一概而论，要看角色定位。如果是政治家或由执政党推荐的国家机关官员等权力主体，他们政治化地运用宪法学或宪法学知识，有其正当性和合理性。但以学术为职志的学者不宜将宪法学政治化，因为他们的职业责任首先是实事求是地揭示或还原宪法现象的各种内在和外在联系，他们首先要尽学者的职业责任。这是完善社会分工和形成正常社会秩序的要求，符合社会整体利益的需要。所以，有远见的当权政治家，都会从根本上尊重忠实履行职业责任的宪法学者，尽管所有的当权政治家都难免对后者的“不合作”感到失望或不满。
当权政治家希望并且努力促使宪法学者按前者的愿望解说宪法现象的各种内在和外在联系，宪法学者期待并努力促使当权政治家的行为契合宪法现象的真实内在和外在联系及其发展趋势，两者都是非常正常的事情。因此，当权政治家等权力主体与宪法学者之间的关系，难免存在某种程度的紧张和竞争，从而相互影响。在这里，两者都应该有所坚持，否则就事实上失掉了自我，变成了对方的附庸，从而也否定了自己特有的职业身份，甚至消灭了正常的社会分工。否定特有职业身份和消灭正常社会分工，肯定不是形成正常社会秩序、正常法治秩序的要求。
宪法学是社会科学，宪法学术也要求经世致用，但它的有用，既不应是片面为个人等权利主体所用，更不应是片面为当权政治家等权力主体所用，而是要在权利与权力结构平衡的前提下为实现社会整体利益（包括两种主体的共同利益）所用。同时兼顾和平衡权利与权力、权利主体的利益与权力主体的利益，是宪法和宪法学对专职宪法研究人员的道德命令。
对宪法学作品简单化地扣“宣扬西方思想、鼓吹西方制度”的帽子，就扣帽者的行为而言，虽说是一种恶劣学风的表现，但直接的后果却是扣帽者期望获取的宪法学者身份的沦落，即无意识地自我否定了学者身份，包括法律学者身份。如果公权力组织按自己的需要将这类扣帽子的行为转化为获官方支持的行为，并使被扣帽者的基本权利受损，那或许确实可以被视为将学术过程及其结果“政治化”的做法。但这种做法无疑脱离了的当权政治家等权力主体与宪法学者间正常的社会职业分工关系伦理，不是好事。
还要看到，某些传统上被认为属于政治范畴的行为，如扣“宣扬西方思想、鼓吹西方制度”的帽子等做法，本身既非政治行为，亦非学术行为，而是一种极端的、冲撞性的言论发表活动，对健康社会秩序包括中国现行宪法秩序有很大破坏性。
A: The Constitution is the institutionalization of democratic politics. Therefore, constitutional studies must study political issues, and will affirm certain political elements or negate some others, which will unavoidably benefit or undermine the interests of some political relations subjects, and thus cannot be completely insulated from politics. However, acknowledging that constitutional science cannot be insulated from politics does not mean that politics and constitutional scholarship should not be relatively separated. In fact, the two should be distinguished as strictly as possible. In the context of contemporary China, the core of politics is the need to consolidate political dominance, and the core content of social science academic activities is to reveal or restore various internal and external connections from the academic perspective. In this sense, the politicization of constitutional law on the academic side would disregard the facts and the spirit of seeking truth from facts, and to arbitrarily explain the various internal and external connections of constitutional phenomena according to the needs of politically dominant social groups.
Is it advisable to politicize constitutional law? I think this is not something that can be generalized, but rather it depends on context. If one speaks of politicians or officials of state organs recommended by the ruling party, they use their constitutional or constitutional knowledge in the service of political objectives, and they have legitimacy and rationality. However, scholars with academic ethics should not politicize constitutional law, because their professional responsibility is first and foremost to reveal or restore various internal and external connections of constitutional phenomena. They must first fulfill their professional responsibilities. This is a requirement to improve social division of labor and form a normal social order, and meet the needs of the overall interests of society. Therefore, far-sighted politicians in power will fundamentally respect the constitutional scholars who faithfully perform their professional responsibilities, even though the politicians in power may be inevitably be disappointed or dissatisfied with the latter's "non-cooperation."
The politicians in power hope and strive to urge the constitutional scholars to explain the various internal and external connections of the constitutional phenomenon according to their wishes. Constitutional scholars expect and work hard to promote the true internal and external connection of the behavior of the politicians in power and the development trend of the constitutional phenomenon. Both are very normal things. Therefore, the relationship between politicians in power and other actors of power and constitutional scholars will inevitably have some degree of tension and competition, thus affecting each other. Here, both sides should have somthing to insist on, otherwise they will actually lose their autonomy within their sphere of responsibility and become the vassal of each other, thus denying their unique professional identity and even eliminating the normal social division of labor. Negating the unique professional identity and eliminating the normal social division of labor is certainly not a requirement for a normal social order and a normal rule of law.
Constitutional science is a social science, and constitutional scholarship also requires the use of the world, but its usefulness should not be used by one-sided subjects such as individuals, neither should it be used by power subjects such as politicians in power. However, in under the premise of the balance of rights and power structure, it is used to realize the overall interests of society (including the common interests of the two subjects). At the same time, in the context of the balancing of rights and powers, the interests of rights subjects and the interests of power subjects is the moral imperative of the constitutional and constitutional studies of full-time constitutional researchers.
The simplistic labeling of the constitutional work’s to that of “promoting Western thoughts and advocating Western institutions” is a manifestation of a bad academic style. But the immediate consequence is the degeneration of the constitutional scholarship that the leaders expect to acquire, that is, the unconsciously self-denial of the identity of the scholar, including the identity of the legal scholar. If the public authority transforms the behavior of such acts into officially supported behaviors and impairs the basic rights of those who got labeled, it may indeed be seen as a political process and its outcome. However, this kind of practice is undoubtedly a departure from the normal ethical relationship of social occupational division of power between political powers and constitutional scholars.
It should also be noted that certain practices that have traditionally been considered to be political, such as the labeling of “promoting Western ideas and advocating Western institutions”, are not political or academic, but extreme. Clashing speech publishing activities are very destructive to healthy social order, including China's current constitutional order.
Q：关于西方和其他国家宪法制度的知识是不是算宪法学的一个重要部分？
Q: Is knowledge about the constitutional system of the West and other countries an important part of constitutional law?
A：在中国，外国宪法制度历来是宪法学的重要构成部分。中国宪法学研究，在硕士研究生和博士研究生阶段区分为中国宪法、外国宪法、比较宪法三个方向或三门课程，是十分常见的做法。中国有些法学院校，在本科阶段也有把宪法学教学内容区分为中国宪法和外国宪法两部分，教材也分中国宪法和外国宪法。因制度原创性的原因，所谓外国宪法，以英国、美国、法国三国的宪法制度最有代表性，其次是德俄日的宪法制度，其他国家的宪法制度多是它们或早或迟的派生形式。
A: In China, the foreign constitutional system has always been an important part of constitutional law studies. It is quite common for Chinese constitutional studies to be divided into three directions or three courses in the Chinese constitution, foreign constitution, and comparative constitution at the master's and doctoral levels. Some law schools in China also divide the content of constitutional teaching into two parts: the Chinese Constitution and the Foreign Constitution. The textbooks are also divided into the Chinese Constitution and the Foreign Constitution. Due to the originality of the system, the so-called foreign constitution is the most representative of the constitutional system of the United Kingdom, the United States, and France, followed by the constitutional system of Germany and Russia. The constitutional systems of other countries are mostly their early or late forms of derivation.
Q：你对“马工程”的教材熟悉吗？
Q: Are you familiar with the teaching materials of "Ma Project"?
A：我对“马工程”算比较熟悉。马工程的法学教材分重点和普通两个层次，马工程普通教材由中国教育行政部门负责，马工程重点教材由更高层级的机构负责。马工程重点法学教材只有法理学和宪法学两种，且早就公开出版了。你从2017年版马工程重点教材《宪法学》版权页之后的那一页上可以看到首席专家和主要编写人员名单，本人也名列这个名单中。我参与了这一版宪法学教材的编写并为其中的一章撰写了初稿。去年听说要出修订版了，但包括中国宪法学研究会会长和我在内的几个原本参与其事的宪法学教授本次没有接到参与修订的通知，原因不详。多个消息来源证实，马工程《宪法学》编写组主要成员中增加了柯华庆教授。
我觉得，搞“马工程”宪法学教材是有意义的，但最好只搞一个教学纲要，用以指导和规范宪法学教材的编写和教学实践。宪法学教材太仔细而又定于一尊，不利于宪法学的健康发展。另外，若要树立“马工程”宪法学教材的权威，让各政法院校愿意选用，那就一定要由该学科公认的一流学者来编写，而且要由他们自主决定体例和内容，这样才有可能使教材达到一流的学术水平。否则，“马工程”宪法学教材势必难以占据足够学术市场。用行政手段强推质量欠佳的宪法学教材，可能使其成为高校或法学界的嘲讽对象。这种情况一定要避免。
或许，你想让我评价一下既有的“马工程”宪法学教材的质量或水平，行，说几句。“马工程”宪法学教材原有主事者和主要参与者都是中国一流宪法学教授，但纵观该教材的形成过程和结果，非学术因素的影响还是偏多，一些重要的提法和内容，编写组当不了家。记得有个大家一致主张的提法，在编写过程中受到否定后，编写组曾打报告据理力争，但最终还是没能获采用。非学术因素起作用过大的情形，必然对教材质量产生负面影响。原有“马工程”宪法学教材编写组的主要负责人是德高望重的许崇德教授。宪法学界差不多都知道，许老对他花了很多心血组织编写的这本教材的评价相当低。我同意许老的意见。如果一定要我把评价说出来，我愿意这样说：总体来说质量不算好，但马虎过得去。
许老已经过世，原有编写组部分教授已离开，吐故纳新，很正常。我期待新修订的“马工程”宪法学教材学术水准或质量能有所提高，不能一代不如一代。很不幸，现在看来这部教材有“九斤老太”常叹息的那种趋势。
A: I am relatively familiar with the "Ma project". The legal textbooks for the Ma Project are divided into two levels: the general textbook for the project is under the oversight of the Chinese department of education , and the key materials for the project are under the overseening of higher level institutions. The key legal textbooks for the Ma Project are only jurisprudence and constitutional science, and they have been published for a long time. You can see the list of chief experts and main writers from the page after the copyright page of the 2017 edition of the key textbook "Constitutional Law". I am also on this list. I participated in the preparation of this edition of the constitutional textbook and wrote a draft for one of the chapters. I heard that a revised version was made last year, but several constitutional professors, including the President of the Chinese Constitutional Research Association and me, who participated in the original works, did not receive a notice to participate in the revision. The reason is unknown. A number of sources confirmed that Professor Ke Huaqing was added to the main members of the Ma Project Constitutional Writing Group.
I think it is meaningful to initiate the "Ma project" constitutional textbooks, but it is best to only have a teaching outline to guide and standardize the preparation and teaching practice of constitutional textbooks. To set one detailed and definitive constitutional textbook is not conducive to the healthy development of constitutional law studies. In addition, if you want to establish the authority of the "Ma project" constitutional textbooks, and let the political and legal colleges are willing to choose them, then it must be written by the first-class scholars recognized by the discipline, and they must decide their own style and content. It is possible to bring the teaching materials to a first-class academic level. Otherwise, it will be difficult for the "Ma Project" constitutional textbooks to occupy enough academic market. Using administrative means to push the poor quality constitutional textbooks may make them a mockery of law schools and the academia. This situation must be avoided.
Perhaps, you want me to evaluate the quality or level of the existing "Ma project" constitutional textbooks, and I am willing to say a few words. The original principals and main participants of the "Ma Project" constitutional textbooks are all first-class constitutional professors in China. However, the impact of non-academic factors is still high. Some important references and content, developed outside the group consensus. I remember that there was a consensus that everyone of the writing group agreed on, after being negated in the process of writing, the writing team had tried to report and seek for support, but it was still not adopted in the end. Non-academic factors that play too big a role will inevitably have a negative impact on the quality of teaching materials. The main person in charge of the original "Ma Project" constitutional textbook writing group is Professor Xu Chongde, who is highly respected. Almost all of the constitutional scholars know that Xu Lao’s evaluation of this textbook, which he has spent a lot of hard work on, is quite low. I agree with Xu's opinion. If I have to make the evaluation, I would like to say this: in general, the quality is not good, but rather is sloppy.
Professor Xu has passed away and some professors in the original writing group have also left, and it is normal for the writing group to accept new members. I am looking forward to the improvement of the academic standards or quality of the newly revised "Ma Project" constitutional textbooks, which cannot be deteriorating generation by generation. Unfortunately, it seems that this textbook has the tendency of the overweight lady who always sighs.
Q：最后，您怎么看待目前中国法律学的整个环境？有一部分观察者看到举报和摸底事件，称这些问题反映了一个环境锁紧趋势； 不知道您同不同意？
Q: in the end, how do you think of the overall environment of China’s legal academia? Some observers says the “reporting” and the “survey” shows that the regulation is getting tighter, would you agree with them?
A：对目前中国法律学的教学和研究环境，不同的二级学科、不同的个体，感受是有差别的。一般来说，做民商法、刑法、行政法、经济法、诉讼法教学和研究的教师，感受似乎好一点，做宪法教学和研究的则往往差一些。宪法学的论文和著作，发表、出版的事前审查过去几十年一直都是偏严的，现在当然更严，有的出版社已经形成制度，凡标题含宪法二字的书，一律走特殊严格的程序审批。说个笑话，在这样的环境下，一个人即使政治上故意想出格、故意想犯错误，那都不容易做到，因为太多的人、太多的环节帮你把关。所以，一个宪法教师，如果说课堂上说走了嘴，那不难想象，但如果说他/她编写的教材内容出多大问题，那是难以令人置信的。张千帆教授的《宪法学》教材，我以前都读过，从第一版到第三版，这两天再次翻阅了，没发现什么问题。我猜想，或许是有关人员认为张教授介绍西方宪法制度的篇幅大了些，感到不适意，扣了他一个“宣扬、鼓吹”西方宪制的帽子。据我所知，张教授这部教材一直在准备出第四版，前几个月他还热情邀请我为其写2018年修宪新增加的监察制度这一章。最近张教授在微信中告诉我，说教材没通过审查，出不成了，我那章因而也白写了。他没说原因。这类事在我们的职业生涯中不罕见，我能理解。
关于法律学言论出版环境是否存在日益锁紧趋势，我很难做评估。举报是个人行为，摸底按理说应该只是应对某种状况的调查研究措施，直接目的在于弄清基本情况，最终怎么处置还有待观察。不过，不论法治还是人治，具体治理措施有张有弛，有起伏，亦属正常；弦拉得太紧会断，也是普通人都知道的生活常识。在时下的法学领域，连接权力主体与权利主体两端的弦确实已经绷得够紧了，进一步绷紧还能有多少空间，没法估计。人们能知道的是，这根弦肯定不是绷得越紧越好，它应该维持在一定张力的范围内。
还有，不论严格实施宪法，还是依宪执政、依法治国，其成果最终应落实到宪法确认的公民基本权利的保障水平上，否则就是空的——我不知道这是不是只有宪法学者才有的信念。言行一致，切实保障公民基本权利，或改善公民基本权利保障状况，包括改善人身自由、言论出版自由和科学研究的自由的法律保障状况，对中国执政党和政府，在国内外都是特别有面子的事情，做好了也一定会有多方面的效益，其中包括增强其政治合法性和提升整体形象。反之则肯定会削弱乃至损害这些有价值的东西。相信中国决定政策的人们对此有比我更深刻的认识，也会进一步改善中国公民的基本权利保障状况。
A. Currently there are differences between different disciplines and individuals to feel the current environment of teaching and researching in legal academia. Generally speaking, scholars teaching and researching in the field of business and civil law, criminal law, administrative law, economic law and legal procedures will feel relatively better while those who do constitutional law might feel worse. The publication of papers and books in constitutional law has been always stricter than others but recently getting even stricter. Some publishing house has already set the rule that the term “constitutional law” in the title will automatically trigger additional approval process. To make a joke, in such an environment, it is not easy for a scholar to deliberately make mistakes and go beyond the limits because there are too many goalkeepers and safeguards. So it might be imaginable for a a constitutional law teacher to make minor verbal mistakes in class, but it’s unimaginable for one to make huge mistakes in textbooks he or she wrote. I have read Professor Zhang Qianfan’s constitutional law textbook from the first edition to the third one and I reviewed them those days but still did not find any problems. I guess mayby some people think the length of Professor Zhang’s introduction to western constitutional law system might be too long and they don’t like it, so labeled his book “advocating” western constitutionalism. To my knowledge, Professor Zhang has been preparing for the fourth edition of this textbook and he invited me to write the new chapter of supervision system adopted by the revision of the constitution in 2018. Recently Professor Zhang told me that the textbook failed to be approved and thus can not be published, so the chapter I wrote also ended up in vain. He did not tell me the reason but I can understand as this is not rare in our profession.
It is hard for me the assess whether there is a trend of tightening up the opinion and publication environment in legal academia. Reporting is a personal act and the survey in its nature should be a measure of knowing a situation in response to certain concern, the result is yet to be seen. Anyway, whether it’s rule of law or rule of people, there is a normal fluctuation in specific governance, every one knows that string might break up when it’s tightened up too much. In the current legal academia, the string that connects the subjects of power and those of rights has been tightened up to a saturated extent and I don’t know whether there is still some more space ahead to further tightening. But what people know is that it’s definitely not the tighter, the better. Rather, it should be maintained in a range with certain tension.
Moreover, whether it’s strictly implementing the constitution or governing according to the constitution and law, the result should be anchored at the constitutional protection of citizen’s basic rights confirmed by the constitution, otherwise it will be empty --- I am not sure whether it’s the belief shared only among constitutional scholars. Do what one preaches, protect citizens’ basic rights in a practical manner, improve the protection of citizens’ basic rights including personal freedom, freedom of speech and publication and freedom of scientific research is a good undertaking for the ruling party and the government both domestically and internationally. It will yield multiple benefits once being done in the right way, including upholding the political legitimacy of ruling and improving overall image. Otherwise it will undermine those valuable elements. I believe decision makers will have more profound understanding of such a situation and will further the improvement of the protection of citizens’ basic rights.
（注：作者是华东政法大学教授。本文仅代表作者个人观点。责编邮箱bo.liu@ftchinese.com）
版权声明：本文版权归FT中文网所有，未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载，复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分，侵权必究。
__________
Disappearing textbook highlights debate in China over academic freedom
Christian Shepherd
BEIJING (Reuters) - A constitutional law textbook written by one China’s best-known reform-minded legal scholars has been pulled from book shops, apparently the latest text to run afoul of a government campaign against “Western influence”.
The author, Zhang Qianfan, a professor at Peking University known for his advocacy of constitutionalism and judicial reform, dismissed any suggestion his writing excessively promoted Western ideas as “utter nonsense”, and said the academic world should not be politicized.
Since taking office in 2012, President Xi Jinping has tightened the Communist Party’s control over society including the legal system and education.
While authorities have not confirmed they ordered the book withdrawn, and no reason for its disappearance has been given, it comes after the government launched a sweeping review of teaching materials.
The Ministry of Education in early January launched a nationwide check on the content of all university constitutional law textbooks, according to posts on the Jiangxi and Zhejiang province Education Ministry websites.
Universities were told the “fact-finding” sweep was of great importance and they must accurately fill in a chart detailing titles and authors of the books they used, with “no omissions”, according to the ministry’s posts.
The campaign drew criticism from some legal academics, which was amplified by a rumor that the sweep was sparked by an accusation by a professor that certain texts were “promoting Western thinking and agitating for a Western system”.
The Education Ministry did not respond to a faxed request for comment.
China’s constitution promises freedom of speech, religion and assembly, but it is trumped in practice by legislation and regulations, and it is rarely invoked in legal cases.
The constitution has long been a focus for political reformers, who argue that its status should be elevated within the legal system.
Zhang’s book could not be found on China’s main online bookstores when searched by Reuters on Friday.
‘EVERYONE IS SCARED’
Zhang, in an interview published on the WeChat social media platform, rejected any suggestion his texts promoted a “Western” system over alternatives.
“To criticize purely for the sake of it and to shut our nation off to the outside world is closed-minded thinking,” Zhang said.
“Constitutional law, as an academic discipline, should not be politicized,” he said. “Any academic discipline should retain a certain political neutrality.”
“At this time, constitutional law is a ‘sensitive’ topic. As far as I can see there is basically no public discussion. It seems that everyone is scared,” he said.
Zhang’s interview disappeared soon after it was posted, to be replaced by a notice saying the content had broken “relevant laws and regulations”.
Zhang did not respond to a Reuters email seeking comment.
Many legal scholars took to social media to voice support for Zhang.
Some posted the foreword from his book, in which he stresses the importance of giving people who have suffered injustices the chance to defend themselves using the constitution.
Some voiced concern that some academics might accuse others of failing to toe the party line.
“The worst part about this incident is that in the current environment, not only are these people not inhibited, but rather they are given a channel, or even rewards,” Zhang Taisu, an associate professor of law at Yale University in the United States, wrote on Weibo, referring to the accusers.
Reporting by Christian Shepherd; Editing by Tony Munroe, Robert Birsel
No comments:
Post a Comment