The free run across the Yan Garden, which became a sign of an associate professor at Peking University. Li Zhi, an educator with a strong personality, has recently attracted a lot of discussion for his unique approach to the school's janitor system.
In a light-hearted and humorous style, he revealed some of the inconveniences of the school's face-brushing system through a running race with security guards.
Li Zhi's article is not a simple **, but more like a collision of ideas that calls for thinking. In his view, the reform of the guard system is not a static pursuit, but a dialogue about the balance between freedom and security.
He joked that he was a "hurdle professor," a humorous title that reflected his uninhibited attitude towards the established system.
This is not the first time that Li Zhi has "argued" with the school management. His contributions to teaching and scholarship cannot be overlooked, but he is known for his constructive criticism of school policy.
He has made many comments and even dabbled in the issue of campus safety. He is not "rebelling", but calling for more open thinking and dialogue.
Peking University has long been regarded as one of the most enlightened universities in the country, but this open-mindedness has been questioned on a number of practical issues.
Li Zhi's article is not only a joke about the janitor system, but also a response to the liberal tradition of Peking University. He expressed a rational reflection that "striving for everyone not to be afraid of offending the leader" is the foundation of the school's true enlightenment.
The discussion about opening the school gates also raised some key questions. At the moment when social security is improving, is it necessary to control school gates too strictly?
Hu Xijin and Southern Weekly's call expressed the expectation that universities should open up as a liberation from social responsibility.
However, the article also raises some key questions: attribution of responsibility, difficulty of management, etc. If there is a public order incident, how can the school be exempted from liability?Should the school be held accountable for a student's whereabouts if something happens to them?
On these issues, I believe that a balance needs to be struck that ensures that the campus is free and open and that it is safe. Perhaps advanced technology, such as smart surveillance, can be used to replace the traditional face-brushing system to reduce inconvenience.
At the same time, schools can make students more consciously protect themselves and form a common sense of responsibility through publicity and education.
Finally, the discussion begs a deeper question: Does Peking University's liberal tradition limit student development?Although Peking University is considered to be the "last tear of socialist science education", it also means that Peking University students may be more likely to be labeled as "disobedient" and "critical".
Does this label hinder the development and career promotion of Peking University students?This requires more in-depth social observation and research.
We should think more rationally about Southern Weekly and Hu Xijin's appeal. Will the opening of schools really solve all problems?Does openness mean exemption?
We need more discussion and research than simply expecting schools to "lead by example". Peking University's tradition of openness is valuable, but it also needs to be reasonably adjusted on the premise of ensuring the safety of the university.
In this debate over the gatekeeper system, Lee Sik leads the way in thinking about freedom and security in his own unique way. His article is not only a joke about face brushing and running, but also a reflection on school management and social responsibility.
In this age of information, we need more voices with personality and depth of thinking to promote social progress.
Under the guidance of Li Zhi's "hurdle", we have seen the unique speculation and reflection in the palace of knowledge of Peking University. The controversy over the gatekeeper system is only a glimmer of light on this enlightened soil.
The future of Peking University requires more individuality and critical thinking to cope with various challenges in social development. Between this balance between freedom and security, we look forward to seeing more dialogue, rationality, and innovation to lead Peking University to a more unique and mature path.
Perhaps, it is in such collisions and achievements that Peking University can continue to maintain its enlightened tradition and contribute to the continuous progress of society.