Zhong Shao and Yu Cheng's fans formed an alliance to voice their support for the same incident, promoting each other's idols. The reason behind this mutual promotion lies in the striking similarities between the two actors' behaviour on Weibo. Firstly, both rarely engage actively on social media platforms, to the extent that when releasing a new song, they only repost previews from music platforms; or when a new movie is to be released, they only retweet promotional posts from the movie's official account. Secondly, the last time both actors updated their selfies was three years ago. Social media seems to be like an overgrown forest to them.
Despite their infrequent posts and reposts, the majority are in support of various individuals and events.
It's quite surprising to find two actors in the entertainment industry with such similar characters. Shouldn't we seize the opportunity to promote them?
These two reposts with comments have extended the discussion of the #Nangang Unipeepingincident#, causing the traffic of the dual award-winning actor and the emerging best newcomer actor to be daunting. However, the high-quality comments and retweets from the fans of these quality actors have propelled this incident to a new climax, sparking nationwide discussions.
Seizing this wave, the official social media account of the Nangang University College of Humanities and Arts Student Union post content refers to "eight questions to the university" at midnight on the same day.
1. Upon inquiring with the school, as per Article 52 of the "Regulations on the Management of Higher Education Institutions" in 2017, the sixth circumstance for expulsion of student status involves situations that severely impact the teaching order, living order, and public management order of the school, which may lead to expulsion from the institution. Furthermore, our student union has discovered through compiling information from other universities regarding the handling of sexual harassment cases, that over ten universities not only impose expulsion as a penalty but also issue official documents with seals. They also make public announcements on official school social media platforms, websites, and conduct online notifications. Even those with relatively minor offences, are subjected to disciplinary probation and public criticism. However, as of one week after the incident, besides a counsellor notifying in the college group chat about the disciplinary probation, no official documents with seals or relevant notifications have been observed. It raises the question of whether this verbal notification complies with regulations and whether group chat notifications can substitute official announcements.
2. In light of the verbal notification to the perpetrator of voyeurism stating "disciplinary probation has been imposed" dated May 23, 2022, while the female student posted her article on May 21, 2022, the question arises as to why the school hastily handled the matter only after the female student made her post. What stance does the school truly adopt in addressing sexual harassment, which is a violation of the law?
3. Referring to the evidence currently held by our student union, it is evident that the voyeur had a history of voyeurism on campus, was taken away by security after being reported, and the counsellor informed the reporter that disciplinary action had been taken, while also advising the student to keep it confidential. Upon checking the school's intranet, no official announcement regarding the handling of the case involving this student was found. The question remains whether the school has actually addressed the previous case properly and why the counsellor instructed to keep the incident involving the voyeurism perpetrator confidential.
4. Based on the guidelines outlined in Article 12 of the "Nangang University Student Handbook," our institution addresses instances of sexual harassment and voyeurism among students with disciplinary actions ranging from warnings to expulsion, depending on the severity of the offence. In accordance with Article 6 of the "Nangang University Disciplinary Measures," for students found guilty of two or more infractions, the penalties may be combined and heightened based on the circumstances. It is imperative to inquire about the specific criteria used by our institution to determine the severity of offences. Why does the issue of "peeping tom" behaviour not warrant a more stringent response from the university?
5. In light of relevant regulations, it is essential to note that voyeurism violates privacy, image rights, and reputation, entitling victims to seek civil restitution. Drawing from past incidents of sexual harassment in academic settings, such as the voyeurism cases at Nangang Normal University which violated public security regulations and led to administrative detention, one must inquire whether law enforcement was involved in the report to campus security by female students. Additionally, why was there no advisory issued to other female students regarding safety precautions during the handling of this incident?
6. Furthermore, during discussions between the responsible faculty member and our female students regarding this incident, employing societal stereotypes to blame the victims (e.g., suggesting women should dress more conservatively, labelling sexual harassment as isolated incidents) does not align with the standards of our esteemed comprehensive university. Why do such remarks exhibit a bias against the victims? In this new era of progressive values, why should a woman's choice of clothing be a point of contention? Can this form of educational discourse effectively reduce incidents of campus sexual harassment?
7. The transparency of the school investigation process has been questioned by our college. Despite multiple requests from the female victims to view the surveillance footage from May 18, 2022, access has been consistently blocked. Furthermore, during the process of students collecting evidence jointly, the school authorities demanded that our college's students with We-media account operations cease spreading information about the incident to avoid negative repercussions for the school. When our female students sought self-empowerment and gained attention online, a male leader trespassed into the female students' dormitory and threatened them. Is the school's attempt to hush up the matter considered a dereliction of duty by the staff? Does the school acknowledge that the actions of the perpetrator involve a public security issue rather than a private matter of the school? With the surveillance application process heavily obstructed, how can our female students assert their rights and protect themselves?
8. The victim has not received any response or apology from the perpetrator of the voyeurism incident to date, remaining hidden even amidst escalating public outrage. Regardless of the outcome of the school's handling of the situation, the Student Union of the College of Humanities and Arts will demand a public apology from the perpetrator!
In the end, they leave a powerful statement:
"Lin Zhan, President of the Student Union of the College of Humanities and Arts at Nangang University, representing all male students, pledges to stand behind all our female students, saying, "We will always support you, ladies, please fly bravely!"
These eight questions are resolute and impactful, each word a precious gem.
The student council of the School of Humanities and Arts at Nangang University, after conducting a campus-wide survey, has decided to openly and transparently address the school administration. This is not to create opposition, but to ensure a transparent investigation process and fair outcome, serving as a reminder and alert to all female students. The compilation and drafting of these questions were carried out by all male members of the student council, with their commitment reflecting their original intentions. Women should never be objectified, stereotyped, or used as tools; they are independent, confident, and courageous individuals who are pioneers willing to strive and explore. If they are to break away from rigid stereotypes, it is crucial for them to take the first step, alongside their male counterparts. While empathy may not fully grasp their inner thoughts, standing in their shoes can provide some insight. Therefore, advocating for and speaking out are not mutually exclusive.
Public opinion, when utilized effectively, can be a powerful tool. The post from the student council of the CHA at Nangang University garnered significant attention from night owls, receiving applause for its content and actions. This included recognition from various reputable media outlets and social media influencers, with both the awake Zhong Shao and the soon-to-sleep Yu Cheng among them.
The sun had not fully emerged from the clouds, and a new wave of activity began on Weibo. A Weibo account named "Speaking Up for My Son" posted a tweet that attracted attention and sparked discussions.
"I am the mother of the 'Peeping Tom,' and I apologise for using public resources and time. First and foremost, on behalf of my son, I apologise to the girl who was secretly photographed. Secondly, I am not here to distort the facts but to state the truth. The behaviour of my son was not intentional but due to a mental illness. He first fell ill at the age of 16, and we took him to a specialist hospital for examination and treatment. Since his discharge, his health has been our top priority. He did not have another episode until before starting university at the age of 19. A week ago, we were informed by the counsellor at his school that he had stopped receiving psychological treatment a month ago and had a relapse after being triggered by certain online videos. We apologise again to the female classmates who were affected and to the school administration caught up in this incident. Therefore, we have decided for him to take a leave of absence for treatment until he is fully recovered."
A few years old diagnosis report was attached below the Weibo post.
Upon closer inspection, this Weibo post can be linked to the #NangangUniPeeping Incident." However, despite its seemingly comprehensive statement, it is riddled with loopholes, and the comments below are mixed. Society's stereotypical views and stigma towards mental illnesses prevail; if a person with a mental illness commits a crime, how should their responsibility be determined? However, it seems that the other party has forgotten that they have dared to question the school. Will the CHA Student Union be at a disadvantage in terms of discourse?
The official account quickly seized on the discrepancies in the post's narrative, reposted, and commented: "Thank you for this Weibo post by Chen's mother, which confirms previous rumours about Chen in this regard. We have several questions and hope to briefly occupy the public's time and resources. We asked Chen or his family to respond:
Were the online videos that triggered him inappropriately? According to our school regulations, individuals who have had mental health issues must report to their tutors before enrollment for health observation. Did Chen report to his homeroom teacher before enrolling? Students in our photography and production department claim that the diagnosis report is photoshopped.
In the comments section, some netizens doubted the authenticity of the diagnosis report, creating small ripples of doubt and discussion.