Recently, two associate professors at a university in Hangzhou questioned the "Xinhua Dictionary", which sparked widespread discussion. They pointed out problems with the annotations of four entries. The first is the interpretation of the word "play", which they think is inappropriate to interpret as "sex" because it involves the issue of sex education. The second is the explanation of "tired", which they believe has a negative impact on students as "children are small and become burdensome". The third is the formation of the word "don't", which they believe violates Article 26 of the Regulations on the Administration of Publications, and may induce minors to imitate illegal acts. Finally, there is an explanation of "倭", they point out that the new version of the dictionary has deleted the word "倭寇", while the Japanese dictionary retains the word, arguing that it is contrary to patriotic education.
The incident sparked a heated discussion on the Internet, resulting in two very different points of view. On the one hand, some support the associate professor's questioning of the Xinhua Dictionary and see it as a measure to preserve cultural heritage and the quality of education. They pointed out that the Xinhua Dictionary, as a learning tool for primary and secondary school students, should have higher requirements for the accuracy, scientificity and appropriateness of the content. They believe that the "poisoned textbook incident" and the "textbook illustration incident" that occurred not long ago have made people question the quality of the textbooks, and the current questioning of the "Xinhua Dictionary" is also a kind of supervision and appeal for the content of the textbooks. Moreover, they suggest that dictionaries can choose a more objective and neutral interpretation of gender-sensitive words, rather than biased and discriminatory interpretations. In addition, they criticized the practice of removing the word "倭寇" from the dictionary, believing that it was detrimental to the propaganda of patriotic education and history education.
On the other hand, there are also some people who believe that this is hype or porcelain touching and question the doubts of the associate professor. They believe that as a dictionary, the interpretation of words in the Xinhua Dictionary involves academic discussions and authoritative judgments, and it is inevitable that there will be individual inappropriate interpretations. They stressed that the Xinhua Dictionary is only an educational tool and cannot be flawless. In addition, they believe that in Chinese culture, the interpretation of some words is achieved through understanding and comprehension, and does not necessarily need to be exactly what they are meant to be. They believe that the two associate professors are too sensitive to the questioning of dictionaries, and even have the suspicion of "**." They believe that this move is a waste of judicial resources, and do not support the associate professor's behavior of hyping the matter on the Internet.
I believe that this event itself is of positive significance for improving the quality of education and promoting academic discussion. Whether it is the doubts of the associate professors or their choice to resort to law, they show their concern and sense of responsibility for education. To some extent, the questions and questions raised by them reflect some of the current problems in the field of education. As for the doubts of the "Xinhua Dictionary", we cannot ignore them. Dictionary is an important tool for students' learning and enlightenment, and its accuracy and scientificity are directly related to students' learning effect and cognitive level. Therefore, for some possible problems and controversies, publishers and education departments should reflect on and improve in a timely manner.
However, I also believe that this matter should not be discussed in a way that is too extreme and extreme. As an academic tool, it is impossible for a dictionary to meet everyone's needs and understanding, because there are different perspectives and interpretations in scholarship itself. We should be rational about the doubts of associate professors, and at the same time, we should respect the diversity and openness of academics. In the process of compiling the dictionary, full consideration should be given to the educational needs of students, the values of society and the inheritance of culture, and strive to be appropriate, objective and scientific.
To sum up, this incident has attracted widespread attention and discussion, and has raised the problem of dictionaries to a higher level. In any case, we cannot avoid the fact that the problem exists, but should solve it rationally. Through this event, we can think more deeply about the importance of education quality and academic discussion, and how to better meet the needs of students and the requirements of society, and promote the development and progress of education. At the same time, it is also a time to encourage diverse voices and academic controversy, and we should welcome and respect different perspectives and interpretations in order to achieve a more comprehensive, fair and accurate educational effect.