From "MeToo with Chinese characteristics" to "Chinese characteristics"

Editor's note: Due to various well-known force majeure, after being repeatedly deleted and warned, (Sister Kou and the editor) condensed all four or five series of articles into one article in anger. This series of articles is a systematic response and supplement to Zuo Wang's article. In the process of writing, I also happened to witness the kick-out incident and the birth of two vague statements. One month later, the article "No further news on the Liu Tao incident" has not been "reversed". I hope to keep speaking out and spreading.

A charity circle with Chinese characteristics

"Chinese characteristics" is a big melting pot. Once the adjective "with Chinese characteristics" is added, the original is completely unrecognizable. "Rule of law with Chinese characteristics" is not rule of law, and "market economy with Chinese characteristics" is not market economy. If "** with Chinese characteristics" returns to her mother's home, her mother will definitely not recognize it, such as "MeToo with Chinese characteristics".

"Metoo" is known to everyone on earth, so there is no need to explain it in detail. "Metoo with Chinese characteristics" is too broad, so let's just talk about the recent sexual assault case involving Liu Tao.

From "MeToo with Chinese characteristics" to "philanthropy circle with Chinese characteristics"

Liu Tao is one of the new public welfare stars who has been very popular in recent years. In addition to being the Secretary-General of Wuhou Community Foundation, he is also the founder of "Xinnan", "Ginkgo Partner" and "Qing'e Scholar". He was exposed to have sexually assaulted women many times. After the incident, he will be "landed smoothly" under the personal silence and public relations response of relevant institutions. Friends who follow this topic, if you only read one article, the first one is the article "How does Metoo make us re-understand the public welfare circle?" (hereinafter referred to as "Metoo circle article") published on June 26. This article was published on metters outside the wall and Douban inside the wall. Now the Douban link has expired, "this page is gone", it turns out that deleting posts is not limited to making irresponsible comments on party and state affairs. This is a Chinese-style ghost horse.

The "Metoo circle article" fully explains the origin and development process of the matter. Based on the performance of the institutions involved, it directly points out the damage done to China's public welfare circle by power oppression, power relations, and the "hypocritical "third sector" community controlled by a small number of elites and capital."

If a public welfare community does not reflect on power relations at all, whether it is dealing with #Metoo or facing capital and the state apparatus, and is greedy for profit and avoids harm, bureaucrats are rampant, and fame is sought, how can it imagine progress, and how can it support the weak under social oppression? Or is it another elite club? In the Liu Tao sexual assault incident, many people are reluctant to make public statements due to their old friendship with him; but we must understand that this is no longer a question of standing in line, but a question of the deep corruption of industry power highlighted by the incident itself...

This is exactly what I worry about.

The author's title directly refers to the "public welfare circle". I agree and will not repeat it. This article will only briefly supplement the physical problems of the public welfare circle with Chinese characteristics and talk about the defects in our genes.

In 2018, the #MeToo movement exposed some influential figures in China’s public welfare circle, which also caused a stir in Taiwan. I happened to be in Taiwan, and many Taiwanese friends talked about civil society organizations and social movements, and compared Taiwan to China: “Are you now equivalent to our 1980s or 1990s?” Every time this happens, I always say: China cannot be compared with Taiwan. Because we have “Chinese characteristics”.

Resource orientation + institutional imprint + elite monopoly

Whether it is a social movement, a civil organization, a public welfare organization, an NGO, or an NPO, Taiwan's resources are endogenous. Whether it was the left-wing movement in the United States in the 1970s or the non-party movement until now, the resources were all paid out by Taiwanese people. However, in China in the 1990s, almost all funds came from foreign capital. Because of the foreign capital, many domestic organizations that received foreign funds were born.

After 1989, in the 1990s, "China's efforts to return to the international community" and "the international community's fantasy of changing China" became a marriage of chicken and duck. International organizations are intended to promote equal participation and civil society, but relevant departments set up relevant institutions for money. In order to apply to host the 1995 World Women's Conference, the Women's Federation became the first domestic organization to accept foreign funds. It did a variety of things, including gender poverty alleviation and children's education.

To accept overseas funds, you must first have qualifications, which are granted by the Party and the State. Who was the first to receive the money that entered China? Most of the "national" foundations are state ministries or ministerial-level institutions with civil servants, such as the "China Red Cross Society", "China Women and Children's Foundation", "China Poverty Alleviation Foundation", "China Disabled Persons' Foundation"... Until the 21st century, there were jokes such as the "China Disabled Persons' Federation", "All-China Women's Federation" and "National Population and Family Planning Commission" arguing over "who is the largest NGO in China".

There are very few Chinese who can cooperate with foreign foundations entering China. Not only must they have institutional qualifications, but they must also be proficient in foreign languages. After the long Cultural Revolution, the college entrance examination has just been resumed, and such talents are more than one in a million in China.

Some people would say that Taiwan's social movement is also driven by elites, but this elite is not the same as that elite. Taiwan's elites not only put out their own money, but also their own time and life. Since the 1980s, they have entered specific communities and specific factories, directly contacted with social problems, and have taken root for a long time, making it their life's work. But too many of our elites have never touched the soil, and they do things on a project basis. If there is money and projects, they will do it, and if there is no money, it's game over... The public welfare circle with Chinese characteristics was born with such a stigma, which is a genetic defect.

"Civil society with Chinese characteristics" is not civil society. Just because "civil society" is a high-frequency word in this circle, we cannot believe it. After the new millennium, the rise of great powers. The 2009 "Regulations on the Management of Overseas Funds" put a noose on overseas funds. The public welfare circle with Chinese characteristics, which was fed with "foreign milk", was caught off guard by the increase in government procurement and the influx of domestic capital. This will inevitably lead to concerns about "Metoo circle articles", regardless of whether the cause of the explosion is Metoo or other reasons.

Let’s continue with the next section, “Civil philanthropy with Chinese characteristics.”

Non-governmental public welfare undertakings with Chinese characteristics

At the outset, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the term used in the previous section was “public welfare circle”, while this section places special emphasis on “civilian public welfare” to distinguish it from what was mentioned in the previous section.

“There are no top talents in your circle”

So, are there people in China who are willing to do things down to earth?

Of course there is. Although this troubled land is always determined by the system and represented by the elite, China's changes have always originated from the land ("Touching the Source of the Wind") .

In the summer of 2006, I completed my first book on the observation of the Chinese NGO industry (later published as " Everything Starts from Changing Yourself "). The manuscript was completed just as my son finished his high school entrance exam and was about to face life choices. I wanted him to see the different sides of the world earlier and use it as a reference. I took him to visit some grassroots organizations that were doing things down to earth, and also visited ongoing project sites to participate in person.

The 16-year-old boy had a serious conversation with me. He also agreed with my observation that he saw idealism and down-to-earthness, but it was "useless" because "there are no first-class talents in your circle." This experience made my son determined his choice to study science and engineering, go to the United States to study, and then come back to save the country through science and technology.

I am very sad that my son and I chose different life directions because I know that his heartbreaking words are right.

We lack more than first-class talents

What university one attends and how high one’s education level is have never been my criteria for judging talent, but I must admit that after the ten-year Cultural Revolution, the college entrance examination was resumed, and the vast majority of China’s outstanding talents were collected, and their life direction is not the third sector. Most of the best went abroad, and those who stayed behind were “people of the Party and the country”, assigned to governments and public institutions at all levels, and entered the “first sector”. Later, the threshold for the first sector with Chinese characteristics became higher and higher. After Deng Xiaoping’s southern tour, all people engaged in business, and private enterprises and the second sector had high incomes. The strong return of state-owned enterprises in the new century has become a landscape with Chinese characteristics in the employment market. Although there have always been private public welfare workers working hard at the grassroots level, it must be admitted that we lack first-class talents, and those who choose the third sector and private public welfare have always been a minority that are looked down upon.

While I was engaged in frontline execution, I also did social observation. I saw hope and the possibility of change from the endless grassroots activists. I also saw many heartbreaking Chinese characteristics, such as the moralization "with Chinese characteristics" - "moral superiority" and "moral tragedy."

Of course, "moral superiority" and "moral tragedy" are not unique to the charity circle in China. As a post-60s generation born during the Cultural Revolution and raised in turmoil, I know the toxins accumulated in my life by long-term political movements, party-state education, manipulated national sentiment, and autocracy in the details of life. "Moralizing" the charity work is a poison that too many people in a country that "governs the country with virtue" are infected with, and it is particularly troublesome for the charity work. The charity work is inherently moral. "Moral superiority" and "moral tragedy" poison one's own life internally, and blackmail and manipulate others externally, harming others and oneself.

Grassroots organizations lack not only money, but also a normal attitude towards money. Our generation was born in turbulent political movements and grew up in an extremely poor living environment. Many things are written into people's subconscious, or they are extremely contemptuous of money, claiming that "money is like dirt", and express their hatred and indignation for money in a "politically correct" way in their work. Or, because of the deep desire for money in life, they are particularly easy to be captured by capital, and various financial scandals are reported in poor organizations.

The future of Chinese civil society

So, does China’s charity sector still have a future?

Of course.

Speaking of the future, I once placed my hopes on the future. I placed my hopes on the people born in the 1980s and even the 1990s, who were free from the shadow of political movements and extreme poverty, and who did not have the inherent political fear and desire for money, and who were more likely to pursue their inner calling and engage in social welfare. When China's economy becomes richer and its society becomes more open and diverse, this generation, after receiving a good education, will not "apply for funds to do projects", but will face specific social problems in specific communities and communities out of their inner desires. "First-class talents + social responsibility + inner drive + rooting in the grassroots", citizens, citizen actions and civil society will generate each other, and this is where hope lies.

After the 5.12 earthquake in 2008, more and more domestic foundations not only provide poverty relief but also support civil society. I am optimistic and highly appreciate the nascent "Ginkgo Project". They use their resource advantages to support outstanding talents in the public welfare circle, who were mostly down-to-earth grassroots activists at first, making them people who are paid attention to by the society and envied by their peers.

In the process of long-term action and observation, I have witnessed more and more outstanding young people choosing private charity as their career and profession, and more and more people participating in volunteer services. I have witnessed those specific and subtle efforts changing China and warming my hope for the future.

However, I overestimated the charity circle with Chinese characteristics and underestimated the "Chinese characteristics". As government procurement increased, grassroots organizations began to become institutionalized and "institutionalized"; as the term "charity" appeared more and more in the media and new media, private charity was increasingly "represented" and represented and endorsed by charity elites and elite organizations; as more money, elites and elite organizations poured into the charity circle, moral superiority and moral tragedy were also renewed.

In this context, it is not surprising that the #MeToo movement has triggered a "charity scandal". After all, the charity world is also a world of its own.

 Note: I have seen highly educated elite activists practicing the concept of civil society, and I have also seen grassroots scum who deceive the world and steal reputation. Due to space limitations, I cannot explain in detail. There is no binary opposition between elites and grassroots.

The charity circle is also a world of its own

The idea of ​​Jianghu comes from an article titled "Pure Land and Jianghu" . The author is a public welfare worker who has switched from a media person to an industry support worker. He saw ideals and Jianghu here. After the article was published, he said at a meeting that if a young person enters the traditional first and second sectors, he may have to struggle for more than ten or twenty years before he can talk to the top people in this industry, but entering the public welfare circle can greatly shorten the time.

The world of martial arts is always a place where the clear are clear and the turbid are turbid. It can be a place of fame and fortune, a place of Shura, a shortcut to the end of the world, or a place for spiritual practice. The bigger the world, the more kinds of people there are. People who pursue their ideals and those who just want to make a living, those who cheat, all live in the same circle.

Grassroots China & Elite Charity Circle

In the 1990s, China opened its doors to return to the international community and attract foreign capital. The Chinese characteristics that took advantage of it were foreign capital + elites with institutional backgrounds. With the 2004 " Regulations on Foundation Management " and the 2016 "Charity Law" , funds with commercial backgrounds entered the public welfare circle, and the public welfare circle became lively. This liveliness also brought employment opportunities and well-paid positions. More and more people with good educational backgrounds began to choose public welfare, or switched to the public welfare circle from other places. The public welfare circle, which was inherently deficient, was flooded with too many "outstanding talents" and produced many "elite public welfare organizations" mentioned in the "Metoo circle articles", elite talents + financial advantages + support from public welfare bosses + business logic operations.

They are not only "entering the charity circle", but also "harvesting charity". It seems that there is a bustling "charity circle", with various media spreading all kinds of prosperity and scrambling for land, and various "charity new stars" quickly becoming popular, leading the discourse for several years and then quickly becoming "charity veterans" who rule a certain area. The already silent private charity has become even more invisible and voiceless.

Some organizations that support private charity leaders, such as the "Ginkgo Project" that pioneered the trend ten years ago and received great acclaim, have shown an elite tendency after collecting iconic private charity figures. The "Qing'e Project" that started in 2016 has called the selected candidates "Qing'e Scholars" from the beginning, which means that it is tailor-made for the elites in the charity circle, or for the elite charity circle.

“Metoo with Chinese characteristics”

The several "public welfare elites" exposed by Metoo in 2018 are all "rising stars" with "intellectual superiority" and "moral superiority". They all have "specific circles" and "support from bigwigs" behind them, and most of them landed smoothly in the end.

Although Metoo exposes a certain behavior of a certain person, there is a kind of power complicity behind it, which is an infringement on the powerless party, whether it is manifested as sexual assault of women by men, bullying of discourse power, or manipulation and blackmail by occupying the moral high ground.

Metoo should have been an opportunity to reflect and establish a prevention and punishment mechanism. Unfortunately, the most eye-catching "scenery" of the 2018 Metoo movement with Chinese characteristics was the rapid public statements of the "public welfare leaders". After Lei Chuang was exposed for sexual assault, he first admitted and apologized to a limited extent, and then made various excuses and evaded responsibility. The leaders did not express support for the victim, but supported the perpetrator. The reason they could say it was nothing more than "making a huge contribution to the public welfare circle", and the reason they should not make it public was that the perpetrator was in the same "circle" as them. When this screenshot was exposed, the "leader" did not take the lead in reflection, but wanted to strictly investigate the leak.

Another secret that cannot be told is that soon after, these bigwigs were also exposed for sexual assaults one after another, and in the end, they all came to an end smoothly.

In 2020, Metoo was exposed again. Individuals and institutions responded to the upgrade. Both the perpetrators and the institutions involved were familiar with the process and were able to handle it with ease. "The so-called mechanism will eventually become a shelter for the perpetrators to escape punishment." The "Metoo circle article" has made it very clear:

All of this was seen by these elite charity organizations as just public relations for public opinion. In the end, "Liu Tao's suspected sexual harassment" was only seen as a crisis of "stigmatization" against the charity circle, rather than a crisis of reflection and criticism against the current state of the industry; no wonder these organizations only used these so-called "mechanisms" to do naked public relations and cut off...

The butt determines the head

After Liu Tao's sexual assault incident was exposed,

What we see from these stakeholders is that they evade and sever responsibilities, and in disguise provide a silent shelter for suspected perpetrators and repeat offenders, which is the so-called passive evil; and then privately condemn the criticism from the public welfare community...

The immediate reaction and subsequent strategies of the organizations involved and the bigwigs behind them are not surprising in the business circle and official circles. They are the usual methods of the first and second departments. Whether it is "Gingko" wielding a knife to cut or "Qing'e" kicking people out of the group, the managers who handle the operations and the financial backers behind them all act out of instinct.

With their intelligence and ability, they understand that this will harm China's public welfare, but they still do it. Obviously, they don't care about this. "Build a better society (Yifang)" and "Let everyone have choices and live with dignity (Ginkgo)" are just the goals and objectives posted on the website for people to see, just a sentence.

All rivers and lakes can be cleared by the clean and the muddy by the muddy, but public welfare cannot, because public welfare is inherently oriented to the public interest. The immorality of people in the circle and the failure of the mechanism destroy the public's trust in the public welfare ideal and civil society. In a short period of time, the "Ginkgo Project" alone has contributed four cases of Metoo. A single rat shit spoils not only the whole pot of soup, but also the pot of "public welfare".

So, what should we do? Show your ideals or nothing.

Show your ideals or leave it empty

Is idealism still on the road or is it dead on the road?

2015 NGOCN's 10th anniversary, the theme of the event is "Idealism is still on the way". For this reason, I specifically asked the post-90s generation how to talk about ideals in this era? The answer is "Ideals are like underwear": you can't live without them, but you can't show them to others.

Unexpectedly, this wave of Metoo, which was exposed by Liu Tao's sexual assault, has pushed the public welfare circle, which is in a state of despair, into a dead end.

After Liu Tao's sexual assault was exposed, "Xinnan" resigned from his current position, and "Gingxing" and "Qing'e" returned the money to settle the matter. This "new star of public welfare" first took advantage of the limelight and quickly became famous, gaining all kinds of fame and fortune. Obviously, he was "not fighting alone." His actions left a comprehensive damage to the public welfare cause, and he withdrew without any punishment. He was also "not fighting alone", and there were unknown forces behind him.

Ginkgo’s internal investigation was delayed for a long time and was not made public, but on June 19, the day Liu Tao returned the money, it announced the separation , stripped away the beautiful whitewash, and exposed the financial relationship. In this bustling world, everyone can come and go for profit, but not for charity. If these "charity leaders" are unscrupulous and directly point to Kong Fang, and regard charity as their honorary title resource library and public trust cash machine, the so-called charity organizations that cooperate with them tacitly are accomplices who help the evil. Liu Tao left after the incident, destroying public trust, and the "charity circle" behind him died ugly.

It’s not that ideals cannot die, but dying in this way is too miserable and not worth it.

We cry not only for our own pain

After the Ginkgo cut-off statement came out, Anzhu declared that he would no longer cooperate with any Ginkgo partner. I understand his grief. Ten years ago, we cried bitterly at a drinking party in Chengdu. That time, Ran Yunfei hosted the party. Cultural figures from Taiwan and Hong Kong and friends from Chengdu gathered together. Anzhu, Xue Ye and I were the only three philanthropists present. Anzhu was alone and sad in the noise: "After the 512 earthquake, I came to Sichuan and made two best friends during the disaster relief. Xue Ye and Luo Shihong were both hurt and in pain..." First he lost his voice alone, and then the three of us cried together. We cried not only for our own pain, but also for the "philanthropy" that is in tune with our lives. Now we are all far away from the "philanthropy circle", but we still can't help showing our anger, and it is still for justice and righteousness.

There are articles exposing Yifang and Ginkgo Consulting Team. Some people are sentimental and worried that this is "excessive", but I don't think it's excessive. This is public information on the public website of a public welfare organization. Usually, we are proud of each other, and when something happens, we will naturally suffer and prosper together. There is a price to pay for touching someone's head or being touched on the head by others.

The relevant individuals and institutions are so shameless that they have destroyed the flag of public welfare. In 2018Metoo, I was in Taiwan, fighting against golden apple snails in the paddy fields of Yilan. In 2020Metoo, I was in Fujian, fighting against water hyacinths in the paddy fields of Longyan. While dealing with the endless weeds in the fields, I asked myself: What can I do?

Worried about hurting innocent people, yet unwilling to produce a "Tai Chi article" myself, this time the writing was difficult and lengthy, from one article to three or four. Amid the difficulty, the second Ginkgo statement was released on July 5 , which was not an admission of guilt, but a Tai Chi game of words.

“It’s no longer a question of standing in line.”

On June 19, I posted a Ginkgo biloba statement, which my friends scrambled to forward and curse. This Tai Chi statement received less than half the forwarding. Half of the forwardings pointed directly to the crux of this empty statement, and there were also many mythical comments. When the sexual assault incident was exposed, some people did not forward or pay attention to it as if it did not exist. Now they immediately forward and praise this vague statement, which exudes a familiar smell. Please refer to the screenshots of a certain Metoo circle in 2018.

I am far away from the charity circle that I once invested my life in and still involve my life. Apart from the sunshine above my head and the wind and rain around me, nothing can affect me. I write this article not because of coercion or inducement, but for the "charity" that still makes me heartbroken. I must quote the "Metoo circle article" again:

In the Liu Tao sexual assault incident, many people were reluctant to speak publicly due to their old friendship with him; however, we must understand that this is no longer a question of standing on the side, but a question of the deep corruption of power in the industry highlighted by the incident itself...

Every public welfare worker has to face up to all the damage done to public welfare, and face the question: Are you trying to blend in with the clique, make money, grab land, and take shortcuts, or are you practicing your ideals and building a civil society?

I have to thank two people I don't know. Huahua, one of the whistleblowers of Lei Chuang's sexual assault in 2018, made me write about it. The assailant landed safely at the time, and two years later he passed the lawyer qualification exam and interned in a certain law firm. He is about to quietly switch to a new life. Huahua bravely stood up again and initiated a petition to stop it. Every step is to claim that she has not received justice, to stop certain people and certain forces from infringing on the public interest, and to repeatedly tear her own wounds. If I let her fight alone, I owe this brave girl.

The other is the author of the "MeToo Circle" that has been cited many times, which made it possible for me to complete this article. Thanks to the author for sorting out the facts and reflecting on power oppression and power relations, he has completed the most important work. This group of articles of mine is, to a certain extent, a supplement to the "MeToo Circle".

In addition to sighing for the under-dressed charity circle, we have to show our ideals or nothing, and we have to reflect on our genes and the problems of China's charity constitution. More importantly, we should think about how to establish mechanisms instead of relying on people to solve the problems and restore public trust. "You can only pull out the grass in your own field yourself."

You have to pull the grass in your own field yourself

As long as you think of a way, there is always a way

On June 19, Ginkgo’s statement unilaterally put an end to the promised investigation and justice. I couldn’t help but "sigh for the public welfare circle that is in a state of disarray", although it is no longer my circle.

I can't let go of my concern for "public welfare" and can't help but offer advice to the Ginkgo people who are asking for solutions. As an individual, there is always a way as long as you want to. At least four victimized girls have stood up and demanded "disclosure." Since the foundation has blocked this road and will not give justice, the Ginkgo partners who once stood up and lined up to express their willingness to be with the victimized women can at least fulfill their promises in their personal capacity. The victims' complaints will not fall on deaf ears because of a statement from the foundation. "Justice is dead, save disclosure." Since we can't expect others to give justice, at least we can achieve disclosure ourselves.

The solution was given and delivered through various channels. But in vain, my suggestion fell on deaf ears and fell into oblivion.

Pushing the #MeToo movement to the law is a shame for the public welfare community

During the writing process, a friend who was paying close attention to this matter mentioned "law".

In 2018, many people who were reported mentioned "law" in their public relations statements, and even said that they would "pursue the responsibility of the reporter according to law." They are really afraid of hooligans being educated, shameless, and even more afraid of hooligans abiding by the law.

The law is the bottom line that cannot be lowered. If it falls below the bottom line, people will not only despise it, but also be punished by the state. Ideals are high standards, upper limits, and the bottom line of the charity circle. If there is any difference between charity workers, it is that we are all ordinary people, but we have different underwear. People who claim to be charity workers actually raised the legal underwear to resist the Metoo moral accountability, which is really a great shame for the charity circle. It is not that we cannot talk about the law, but we are afraid that charity workers will talk about the law in this way at this time. So what should we talk about if not the law? -Talk about ideals.

Public welfare literally means "public interest". Bandits can hold knives and shout "leave money for your passage", but if you want to enter this circle, you have to say some nice words to make sense, no matter if you really want to practice the ideal of civil society, or just to get a salary and work, or to think of shortcuts to grab land.

If you want to hang out here, then make your ideals known - openly.

Openness + mechanism, people can only do good things

Whether you call it an ideal, a personal creed, or an institutional purpose, when you are in the charity circle, you have to say something nice. No matter whether it is true or false, you should say something nice first.

Be open, expose yourself to public scrutiny. It doesn't matter who you are or what you think, as long as you can only do good things according to your promises in this circle, that's enough. Even if you are an unforgivable villain, if you can make it come true here and only do good things and not bad things, that's enough.

Where does such a mechanism come from? First, make a public commitment and then follow through.

More than a decade ago, long before the launch of the USDO, we were the first to achieve full disclosure in our own organization, inspired by the financial chaos in the charity sector. This was jokingly called "financial nakedness in the charity sector." No one asked for it. This was our unilateral commitment and had nothing to do with anyone else.

A few years later, the USDO initiated financial self-discipline and full transparency for Chinese non-profit organizations. At the USDO initiation meeting, we shared details, and the practice that was still called "high standard" at the time was written into the rules and became "standard".

"What can we do?"

I was not as resolute as my friends. After Tai Chi’s statement on July 5, I communicated with Ginkgo’s partners again.

"Now all the firepower is focused on Ginkgo. We died unjustly, but Liu Tao was just watching the fire from the other side and secretly rejoiced." - Ginkgo has contributed so much bad stuff to Metoo, and she cannot escape the blame. The statement of separation is just a self-inflicted disaster, and she deserves to be scolded.

"What can we do?" - Disclosure + establishment of mechanisms.

If you know that the statement is wrong, admit it publicly, and don't make an ambiguous Tai Chi statement that makes the mistake even more serious. Publicly admitting mistakes is the most fundamental crisis public relations, far better than all the evasion, excuses, and public relations tricks.

Openly set up a column on the website to expose his ugliness, publish complaints and treatments against Ginkgo's partners, whether it is the judicial verdict of Liu Meng's sexual assault or Liu Tao's stupid move of sexually assaulting Ginkgo. Use network technology to record the perpetrator's network information and make it public. Those who come here to deceive the world and steal reputations, good or bad reputations must leave their names behind.

Ginkgo has established a public disclosure + self-discipline mechanism starting from #MeToo. We will first push the institutions where Ginkgo’s partners work to do the same, and then push more institutions to do the same, hoping that it will become an industry consensus and mechanism like financial disclosure.

"Specific to MeToo, what else can we do?" - Special projects and special teams. Money is neutral in nature. Using money to do good things is good money, and vice versa is bad money. Invest money to set up special projects, purchase services, provide professional psychological companionship and legal support to MeToo complainants, and respect the complainants' requests for disclosure. If you want to contribute to the charity circle, the support objects are not limited to the Ginkgo complainants, but also extend to others...

Some people say that these contents can be vaguely seen in the Ginkgo Tai Chi statement on July 5, but they are all specious. I know very well how different it is to do things to the extreme and to be neither a donkey nor a horse, just like civil society and "civil society with Chinese characteristics." What we accomplish depends on the goal in our hearts.

Why are we here in this world of mud and sand? For the ideal of civil society, or to mix in the "public welfare circle with Chinese characteristics"? In the face of responsibility, people are born unequal. Those who have ideals naturally have more responsibilities.

You don't need to explain how tired or wronged you are, or thank me. I can only help you to this extent, and you still have to rely on yourself in the end. I have to hang up the phone and pull the weeds. Not using fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides is my own unilateral promise. I neglected my farm work to write this series of articles, and the weeds have grown wildly. Whatever you say is empty, you have to deal with the weeds in your own field yourself.

We are a non-profit independent media. We focus on public issues such as the environment, education, gender, mental health, etc., and provide the public with responsible documentary content.

Click the link to subscribe to our featured emails: https://jinshuju.net/f/sGicEk