Feminists Protest Meiji University’s Invitation to Teng Biao: Open Letter, Responses, and Debates
Teng Biao, Attempted Sexual Assaulter of a Female Journalist, Invited by Meiji University to Attend International Symposium on “Challenges Facing Chinese Liberal Intellectuals".
Selected translation by Chinese Feminism (Nüquan xuelun) volunteers.
Report on the letter and protest
Open Letter Signed by 121 Individuals Worldwide, Appealing for a Reconsideration of #MeToo
(First published in Tokyo, Japan, on March 15, 2024, at 12:00, updated on the evening of March 16, 2024)
Original text in Chinese [click here];Japanese translation [click here]
On March 16th, outside the venue of the symposium “The Challenges Facing Chinese Liberal Intellectuals and Japan’s Role” held at Meiji University in Tokyo, protesters with placards and mini posters questioned the organizer and one of the speakers, Teng Biao (Please refer to the end of the article for the images). Representing 121 individuals worldwide, they believe that gender violence is a prominent challenge faced by “Chinese liberal intellectuals,” and this international symposium directly showcases “Japan’s role”. On the evening of March 12th, the initiators sent an open letter, co-signed by 65 individuals globally, to the Institute of Transnational Labour Studies, Meiji University and the attending experts and have received several responses.
The letter was published on March 11th for co-signatures and targeted Mr. Teng Biao, who was attending the symposium at Meiji University. It was started by a group of feminists living and studying in Japan. Teng Biao was once a prominent human rights advocate and lecturer in laws based in Beijing. He has been vocally advocating for civil rights in China while in exile for the past decade. However, during the #MeToo wave in Taiwan in 2023, Teng was accused of an attempted rape of a female journalist back in 2006. Teng made some self-defences about the “attempted rape” allegation, while acknowledging that he would be responsible for his own “mistakes” and asking his friends not to defend him in his public apology. The victim, on social media, stated that Teng Biao’s public apology was not the version previously agreed upon with her and she did not accept his unilateral “apology letter.”
Recently, Teng Biao has been active in several universities in the United States and has held important positions in multiple overseas human rights organizations. Following the “attempted rape” accusation, Teng withdrew from Humanitarian China, The 29 Principle, and Human Rights in China. Humanitarian China stated that they accepted Teng Biao’s resignation from the board and stated “These accusations are deeply concerning, and we take them very seriously;” “Humanitarian China opposes any inappropriate sexual conduct towards anyone, and the board is committed to upholding personal and professional integrity.” The invitation extended to Teng Biao by the Institute of Transnational Labour Studies, Meiji University (hereafter ITLS), without addressing any of these concerns, served as the catalyst for the issuance of this open letter. Chinese feminists in Japan believe that the ITLS needs to provide some clarifications and explanations about their invitation extended to Teng Biao on the theme of “The Challenges Facing Chinese Liberal Intellectuals and Japan’s Role.”
The open letter includes news reports and background information on the accusations against Teng Biao and asks the ITLS to respond to four questions: 1) if they are aware of the allegations against Teng Biao; 2) their considerations upon being informed; 3) their considerations about a potential second-time traumatization of the victims; 4) their measures and preparations against sexual harassment.
Additionally, Chinese feminists in Japan have sent individual letters to other participants of the symposium, urging them to prioritize gender issues and to join in urging the ITLS to publicly clarify the matter. The letter seeks to call for a rethinking of the #MeToo events and invite collective discussion on the issue of sexual violence, hoping to drive legal and social change through continuous advocacy.
Since its online publication on March 11th, the open letter has received 121 signatures by March 16th, from individuals across approximately 40 cities in 13 countries/regions across Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Southeast Asia, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, the UK, Canada, and the US. Signatories include lawyers, scholars, NGO workers, journalists, activists, students, and office workers.
Signatories’ comments range from gratitude for attention to gender issues in democratic movements and academia to concerns for the rights of the victimized female journalist. One signatory wrote: “Those who have done wrong should be condemned, not glossed over. #MeToo is about the bigger picture and basic human rights!” Another shared: “I supported Teng Biao when he apologized six months ago. But recently, I learned that he has not yet made a satisfactory apology. As someone who once regarded him as an ally, I am doubly disappointed.” Some messages were in English, such as “Hold the sex harassers accountable.” There were also several messages in Japanese expressing their views, such as: “If one values human rights in China, they should value the rights of sexual violence victims as well; I personally boycotted Ghibli’s movie [out of my opposition to sexual violence), and the whole world should take similar countermeasures.” There were also messages in Japanese expressing support, “I think this is not a condemnation, but a great open letter calling for explanations and conversations with the goal of creating a better society. I support you.” A US-based co-signer wrote that a professor at Columbia University, who was also accused of sexual violence, also participated in academic activities as usual, and that they [the co-signer] were encouraged by the letter and would like to do the same when necessary to make inquiries. Another co-signer wrote: “Without further ado, to quote S’s accusation of sexual harassment against Cai Chongguo, ‘to eliminate sexual harassment in the long run, a fair mechanism and feasible punishments must be established by the community.’ This is especially true for Chinese dissidents with security concerns.”
As of this update, the initiators have not received any response from the ITLS. A few guests from Japan, Europe, and the Americas have replied, expressing gratitude and a positive attitude.
Before the start of the symposium on the morning of March 16th, there were female students distributing posters about #MeToo outside the venue. During the afternoon session, when Teng Biao was scheduled to speak first, there were also female students protesting outside with signs to question the organizers and Teng Biao, in the hope that passersby and attendees would pay attention and participate in opposing gender violence (see images at the end of the article). Some witnesses reported that female students who arrived in the afternoon were once expelled. According to participants of the symposium, Teng Biao attended the entire event and still delivered a speech. Although there was no Q&A session during the symposium, there were still our feminist colleagues continuing to speak out.
Photos
Response from Professor Ako Tomoko of the University of Tokyo
Summary: Regarding the open letter initiated by feminist colleagues in Japan about Teng Biao’s attendance at the Meiji University symposium, we have received a response from Professor Ako Tomoko and a commentary from Feng Yuan. We are publishing both here for everyone to read and join in the discussion. If you are interested in this topic, we warmly welcome your submissions to us by sending emails to deonb6342@gmail.com
Background Introduction
Tomoko Ako: A professor at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Tokyo and the president of the Japan Association for Modern China Studies, she has long been focusing on human rights issues in China (for more details, see: researcher’s homepage). She served as a commentator at the symposium “The Challenges Facing Chinese Liberal Intellectuals and the Role of Japan,” which Teng Biao attended.
Original text in Japanese and Chinese translation [click here]
Full Text in English
I have carefully and seriously read your letter. I believe you must have discussed it many times among your feminist colleagues, refining it over and over before finalizing it. I am very impressed.
I myself take this issue very seriously, but I also have numerous other projects for the defense of human rights that require urgent attention. Therefore, I have been extremely busy every day and couldn’t reply immediately.
Nevertheless, I wanted to respond before the symposium on March 16th. So, I am cutting short my sleep now to write this. On March 15th, the day before the symposium, I had discussions with Mr. Teng Biao and other symposium speakers, researchers, and media people. I also sought opinions from acquaintances who are gender scholars, friends who support victims of sexual violence, and lawyers. While I still lack sufficient knowledge and experience, I want to share what I am currently thinking.
Regarding Mr. Teng Biao’s participation in the symposium, I, as someone involved in the project at the Institute of Transnational Labour Studies, Meiji University, have had extensive discussions with people at the Institute. I believe that we did what we could during the preparation stage of the symposium.
You wrote that it is inappropriate for Mr. Teng, a “public figure,” to continue participating in public activities as if nothing had happened, without an open investigation by an independent third party.
Regarding this, I have heard from Mr. Teng that several organizations where he serves as a board member and universities where he lectures have held discussions by expert committees. I also confirmed this with faculty members at these universities. You may think it’s impossible to judge without making the contents of these reports public, but I don’t think it’s necessary.
In investigations regarding sexual violence, if there is a possibility of invading the privacy of the people concerned, their families, and related parties or causing secondary harm, discussions are held in private. I believe Mr. Teng’s case falls under this category.
Clarifying the truth is most important, but regarding the alleged “attempted rape”, there is a discrepancy in testimonies between the woman and Mr. Teng. Since it happened in a private setting with almost no physical evidence or witnesses, we cannot judge. Your letter used the word “victim,” but the “attempted rape” has not been confirmed.
Mistakenly labeling someone as a “perpetrator” can harm that person, their family, and others involved, thus creating new victims. I think it is precisely because the truth is unknown that we must discuss it carefully.
I understand the spread of the #MeToo movement was because victims could not rely solely on courts and police for fair treatment. I have interacted with Ms. Xianzi and Ms. Ito Shiori, heard their stories firsthand, and cried together with them. Although I am not an expert in feminism, I have been actively writing papers from a gender perspective and learning about feminism. I understand that anonymous individuals can’t speak out, and even if they do, they are often unnoticed and suffer. I strongly want to support the #MeToo movement and strive to eliminate structural discrimination.
However, reality is harsh. Changing the unequal social structures and the institutions and political systems that tolerate injustice takes time and effort. Trying to rapidly change what humans and society have built over a long period requires great force, which might become violent, unexpectedly harm people, and create new victims. This has happened in many social movements around the world.
I agree with creating a “space for dialogue,” but we must avoid emotional confrontations, violent statements, or actions, and must value rationality. I fear that this issue could cause a rift among feminists who have been working hard, potentially damaging the foundation of the movement they have built. Such divisions ultimately energize a male-dominated society. To prevent this, I believe we need to persistently continue dialogues, accommodating different opinions among feminists and those who are not, with patience.
Ako Tomoko
University of Tokyo
March 16, 2024
Comment from Feminist Activist Feng Yuan
Summary: Regarding the open letter initiated by feminist colleagues in Japan about Teng Biao’s attendance at the Meiji University symposium, we have received a response from Professor Ako Tomoko and a commentary from Feng Yuan. We are publishing both here for everyone to read and join in the discussion. If you are interested in this topic, we warmly welcome your submissions to us by sending emails to deonb6342@gmail.com
Feng Yuan: A feminist activist, co-founder of the Equality (Weiping, 为平), and a gender equality worker, she has been promoting gender equality since the 1980s through journalism, poverty alleviation and community development, teaching, research, and NGO work.
Original Chinese text and Japanese translation [click here]
English Full Text
On the Invitation of Mr. Teng Biao to an International Symposium at Meiji University
Feminists in Japan initiated an open letter campaign, questioning the invitation by the Institute of Transnational Labour Studies, Meiji University to Teng Biao, who was accused of “attempted sexual assault,” to attend and speak at an international symposium. The symposium was titled “The Challenges Facing Chinese Liberal Intellectuals and the Role of Japan.” As one of the 121 signatories of this open letter, I would like to express some preliminary views on several issues to contribute to the ongoing discussion about the #MeToo movement and oppositions to gender violence.
The initial intention of the open letter was to arouse the organizers’ attention to the issue of gender violence and to handle the public’s concerns appropriately. To those who drafted the open letter, the accusation against Mr. Teng Biao, a “public figure,” especially after it had attracted widespread public attention, should be investigated by an independent third party and the results published to provide an explanation to the public and concerned parties; this is also a way of being responsible to all parties involved. While it is currently a rather idealistic expectation to have such investigations carried out by an independent third party, any investigation that is fair and rigorous in procedure and comprehensive and sufficient in evidence gathering, even if conducted or commissioned by the involved parties, should also have considerable credibility. The open letter believes that the investigation results should be made public; according to my understanding, it means the process and conclusions of the investigation, rather than the details and specifics of the sexual harassment/assault incidents involved.
In reality, not only gender violence (sexual assault, sexual harassment, and domestic violence), but many other disputes, infringements, and even crimes (such as theft, robbery, assault, etc.), often occur without a third person present or witnessing. Nevertheless, the public, relevant institutions, and judicial authorities can find various types of evidence and make judgments based on this evidence. Even if the investigation of some cases, due to various reasons, cannot conclusively determine the existence of the infringement, abuse, or crime, the investigators’ judgment will still be expressed in the investigation results, such as the degree of possibility of what was alleged to have happened, or whether it was a misunderstanding. Regardless of whether a conclusion that confirms or refutes the accusations can be reached, the conclusion part of the investigation report will include suggestions, such as how to “make amends,” how to deal with the aftermath of the event, and how the relevant institutions should establish or improve policies/processes/methods to prevent and handle such events in the future. Such investigation procedures, conclusions, and suggestions can provide at least some justice to all parties involved, and their publication is necessary and very constructive.
I have noticed Mr. Teng Biao’s self-defense and apology. It is both a right and an instinct for a person to defend themselves. In reality, it’s common for the testimonies of accusers and the accused to differ, even contradict. This is the case in court, private spaces, and public forums alike. Mr. Teng Biao, being well-versed in law, surely understands the principle that even a court accepts that one cannot be forced to prove their own guilt. Weeks before the “attempted rape” accusation emerged, there were already public declarations, giving Mr. Teng Biao ample time and space to assert his innocence to his employers, collaborating universities, experts and scholars in various countries, funders, and even feminist opinion leaders whom he values. Mr. Teng Biao also issued a public apology later, stating that his behavior was “unacceptable and unforgivable,” and that it was “a mistake made by me alone, and the consequences should be borne by me alone, so please do not defend me, my friends.” [1] Less than one year after the publication of Mr. Teng Biao’s apology, the open letter campaign serves as a reminder that he should uphold his promise to bravely face the consequences alone, without letting his friends defend him and share the burden of his actions.
Mr. Teng Biao has been active in public discourse and many public activities, which is his personal choice. However, which individuals are invited by institutions to public events can be a public matter, hence the open letter by some feminists in Japan a few days before the symposium. We know that after the global spread of the #MeToo movement, many institutions and individuals realized that even some behaviors don’t constitute “attempted rape” (for example, even if it’s just a “clumsy courtship”), they still constitute improper behavior as long as the recipient’s “feelings are different,” and both the perpetrator and related institutions can be held accountable and asked to take action. Moreover, to my knowledge, more than one woman has spoken out about their experiences with Mr. Teng Biao in different contexts and even submitted formal complaints to some institutions with detailed testimonies and more evidence. Since those institutions have not made any public disclosures, we don’t know if these women’s views were heard, further verified, and considered. However, organizer of the event involved in the “attempted rape” allegation issued a public statement in June 2023, admitting their serious mistakes: first, they unfairly assumed some responsibility on the woman’s part and harshly accused her, thus causing her deep harm; second, they focused excessively on the images of the conference, organization, and themselves, while ignoring the feelings of a team member/attendee who were experiencing a terrible incident; third, as a team leader, they shirked responsibility and failed to provide necessary assistance to the woman [2]. Therefore, the self-reflections of the event organizer by then are at least worth learning from by the ITLS.
Moreover, the ITLS should be aware of the Violence and Harassment Convention, 2019 its optional protocol by the International Labour Conference [3], which provide definitions of violence and harassment and establish a common framework for preventing, responding to, and eliminating violence and harassment. They aim to create a fair, respectful, and safe world of work through social dialogue, applicable in all private or public sectors, in both urban and rural areas, and in both formal and informal economies. The convention also covers work-related travel, training, events, social activities, and communication. In such circumstances, it’s very regrettable that the symposium, open to the public and themed on freedom and rights, still ignore the raised concerns and potential opposition.
The open letter’s demands and language are calm, aiming to draw the attention of the organizers and to handle the matter appropriately to showcase the organizers’ care for the society and their social responsibility as a prestigious and responsible institute. The demands of the open letter align completely with the organizers’ expertise in labor issues and the purpose of the international conference on exploring freedom and rights. On March 16th, the day of the symposium, several women expressed their views in a very restrained manner outside the conference venue. If the open letter campaign causes any harm, it is only because of Mr. Teng Biao’s deviation from his public apology made a few months ago, resulting in new and old damages to his reputation as a human rights defender, to his family, and to related individuals, not because of the current open letter. From the anti-harassment perspective, it is the experiences and testimonies disclosed by more than one woman that led us to believe Mr. Teng Biao is a “perpetrator” of sexual harassment, instead of labeling him as such without proper consideration—even if he himself did not and does not believe this to be true. Whether these harms stop and heal, or continue and worsen, is up to Mr. Teng Biao’s future decisions. Although the ITLS is not a public institution, as a prestigious academic institute, it bears an inescapable social responsibility towards the public and those concerned with public issues.
Feng Yuan,
Equality, Beijing
March 18, 2024
[1] Direct and indirect quotes of Mr. Teng Biao in this article are from the Radio Free Asia report dated June 22, 2023: https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/yataibaodao/kejiaowen/kw2-06212023133935.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] Fifth item on the agenda: Violence and harassment in the world of work: https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C190