I recently came across a news report about a 13-year-old boy who, after being publicly humiliated and oppressed by a teacher, was overwhelmed and took his own life. His parents are demanding that the school pay roughly 900,000 yuan in compensation, issue an apology to the deceased student through the school, and restore the student’s reputation.
12-year-old primary school student Xiao Zhang (alias) was involved in a so-called early romance issue. During a class meeting, the homeroom teacher publicly criticized and lectured him, used inappropriate language, and even asked the students to write notes “describing various situations in the class.” After school, Xiao Zhang jumped from a building and died. After the incident, Xiao Zhang’s parents sued the school, asking the court to order the school to pay more than 920,000 yuan in compensation, and to restore Xiao Zhang’s reputation and issue an apology.
This is how the incident unfolded:
On Friday, November 1, 2024, at 3:36 p.m., the class began its routine class meeting. At 3:50 p.m., the homeroom teacher Huang said that some students had reported that there was an early romance issue in the class, and asked whoever had “reported” it to stand up and speak. One student stood up and said Xiao Zhang had an early romance. At 3:51 p.m., Huang asked Xiao Zhang to stand up and explain the situation, and Xiao Zhang stood up and replied… At 4:07 p.m., Huang said: “I really don’t understand, is it that urgent? Do you all have to start dating at this age? … Are you following the crowd? Who likes whom? You just have to pick someone you like, no matter who it is…” At 4:14 p.m., Huang said: “Now take out your draft paper. You have ten minutes to write down all the situations in the class, everything in the class that you know about.” At 4:25 p.m., the students began passing forward the notes as requested by the teacher. At 4:27 p.m., the class meeting ended. After that, Xiao Zhang took the direct shuttle home and arrived at 6:25 p.m., then went home with his mother.
Then, at 7:35 a.m. the next morning, student Xiao Zhang jumped to his death in his residential community.
Since it is temporarily impossible to find more detailed materials, and I also could not find the specific judgment document for the case, we cannot further understand the truth of the incident. But even from these remarks, it is clear that the teacher’s “education” of students in daily life is extremely barbaric. Xiao Zhang was very likely subjected to such extreme barbarity and long-term disciplinary abuse, eventually leading him down the path to suicide. The issue of early romance was merely the spark.
But the main focus of this case is still the Zhongxiu court. As an instrument of rule for Zhongxiu imperialism, how did the court rule in this case?
The court very faithfully stood on the side of defending the ruling interests of Zhongxiu, defending private ownership and the Confucian hierarchical system. This is how it ruled:
The court of first instance held that, at the time of the incident, Xiao Zhang had already turned 12 years old and was a person with limited civil capacity. He should have had the ability to perceive danger, withstand psychological pressure, and handle problems in a way appropriate to his age. His choice to take his own life meant he should have had a certain awareness of the consequences of his actions. The parents or guardians of a minor should pay attention to the minor’s physical and psychological condition and emotional needs. After Xiao Zhang returned home on Friday after school, his guardian should have fulfilled guardianship duties, paid attention to his physical and psychological condition and emotional needs, and taken positive actions conducive to his healthy growth. After learning of Xiao Zhang’s early romance, Xiao Zhang’s parents failed to detect his psychological changes in time and did not properly comfort or guide him, resulting in Xiao Zhang taking his own life; they were at fault to a certain extent and should also bear corresponding responsibility for Xiao Zhang’s death.
The court pointed out that although the accident in this case did not occur within the educational institution, from Xiao Zhang’s reaction after the class meeting, he was affected to a certain extent by the teacher’s handling of the early romance issue during the class meeting, which was one of the causal factors of the accident in this case. The school was at fault to a certain extent and should bear corresponding responsibility. Considering the whole case, Xiao Zhang should bear the primary responsibility for his own death, and the court of first instance, at its discretion, assigned 10% responsibility to the school.
The total losses caused by Xiao Zhang’s death amounted to 875,144 yuan, of which the school should bear 10%, namely 87,514.4 yuan. The court of first instance also awarded 10,000 yuan as compensation for mental distress. The total came to 97,514.4 yuan. Xiao Zhang’s parents’ request that the school restore Xiao Zhang’s reputation and apologize was not supported because there was insufficient evidence to prove it.
Look at how absurd this is! The court said: “Xiao Zhang had already turned 12 years old and was a person with civil capacity… His choice to take his own life means he should have had a certain awareness of the consequences of his actions.” In other words, suicide was your own choice, so you have to be responsible for your own actions. This is simply turning everything upside down. If Xiao Zhang had not been persecuted at school, where would he have gotten the idea to kill himself? The court found the school 10% responsible, so where does the other 90% go? It did not say it outright, but in reality it means that the student died because he could not think straight, and it has nothing to do with the school, let alone capitalist society.
In fact, the court reached this conclusion selectively. For a young person who was only 13 and chose to jump to his death, it said he was a “person with civil capacity who should have the ability to perceive danger, withstand psychological pressure, and handle problems in a way appropriate to his age.” But for those who bully their classmates for years at school, and even in junior and senior high school, and who take pleasure in bullying others, the exploiters and parasites, it does not say such things or draw such a conclusion. Just think: in schools, even in middle schools, how many bullying incidents have never been resolved? Why, when the court sentences such people, does it instead say they are minors and have not yet formed a clear social awareness?
The court said: “The parents or guardians of a minor… the guardian should fulfill guardianship duties, pay attention to the minor’s physical and psychological condition and emotional needs, and take positive actions conducive to healthy growth. After learning of Xiao Zhang’s early romance, Xiao Zhang’s parents… failed to properly comfort or guide him, resulting in Xiao Zhang taking his own life; they were at fault to a certain extent and should also bear corresponding responsibility for Xiao Zhang’s death.” This passage is also deeply ironic. The court’s meaning has two points: first, Xiao Zhang took his own life because of early romance, not because of persecution by school teachers; second, Xiao Zhang’s parents, as guardians, failed to properly resolve his early romance problem, so they bear corresponding responsibility for his death.
If Xiao Zhang really killed himself because of early romance, then why didn’t he do it earlier or later, but specifically after being publicly humiliated by the teacher? The Zhongxiu court is standing on the opposite side of the truth in exactly this way. It believes Xiao Zhang’s wrongdoing was early romance, and that the teacher kindly tried to help him solve the early romance issue, but unexpectedly Xiao Zhang was too stubborn and emotionally impulsive, so he killed himself. According to the court’s logic, Xiao Zhang even “committed suicide out of fear of guilt.” How shameless! But from the teacher’s only few words, it is clear what purpose and attitude such teachers have when educating students in daily life. Isn’t this bourgeois way of education precisely the direct cause of the student’s death?
Second, the court believed that the parents, as guardians, failed to fulfill their duties properly. And this, in turn, is connected to the Confucian hierarchy under Zhongxiu society. It believes that if the parents, as the rulers of the family (mainly the father), had ruled their child better and trained the child into a loyal servant of capitalist society, then there would be no talk of suicide, and none of these “problems” would exist. That is the court’s sinister intent. But if we think about it, doesn’t Confucianism proclaim that teachers are one’s second parents in life? Then if one’s own student dies, shouldn’t one question whether one’s own “education” was proper? From this point alone, it should be the teacher’s improper education that led to the student’s death, so why does the teacher only bear 10% responsibility? Because this is the true face of the cruel Confucian hierarchy. Whether it is loyalty to the ruler, filial piety, or respect for teachers, these hierarchical demands are always one-sided constraints, the oppressive privilege of the rulers within the hierarchy over the ruled. As the saying goes, “If the ruler is not virtuous, the minister must not be unfaithful; if the father is not kind, the son must not be unfilial.” This is the most straightforward description of that fact. So when the student is still alive, society demands that the student respect the teacher in every possible way and acknowledge that what they have gained is due to the inheritance of the “master”; but when the student dies, society never blames the teacher, and always does everything possible to slander the student as “too fragile.”
Behind such an absurd ruling lies a clear class interest. The court is an instrument of rule in Zhongxiu society, and it firmly defends the interests of exploiters and oppressors, and firmly defends private ownership and the Confucian hierarchy. The court’s workers are all carefully selected through the ruling class’s “education system,” and are people who faithfully serve capitalism. Even though they are parasites living off the huge surplus value extracted from the people, they are also faithful defenders of all kinds of reactionary capitalist order. Therefore, their first reaction to the demands of the masses is disgust; and their first reaction to teachers persecuting students is instead to see the student as causing trouble and the teacher as innocent. Moreover, such rulings are entirely within the scope allowed by Zhongxiu law, which is the bourgeoisie’s “right to interpret the law.” It is clear that capitalist law and courts are ultimately instruments of bourgeois rule; they can never bring fairness and liberation to the proletariat and the broad masses of the people.
Link: 12岁男生放学回家后坠亡，此前曾因涉早恋问题被老师公开批评，家长起诉学校索赔92万|学校|早恋|班主任踢出群_手机网易网