The Story of Gao Yan and #MeToo in China

In 1995, Gao Yan began her major in Chinese Literature at Peking University in Beijing, one of the oldest and most prestigious academic institutions in the country. In 1996, her professor Shen Yang allegedly raped Gao during a study session. Two years of assault, rape, and abuse followed, including rumors by Shen describing Gao as mentally and emotionally unstable. After years of assault and social abuse, Gao committed suicide in 1998 at the age of 21.

Gao Yan’s story remained largely forgotten until April 5, 2018, when an old classmate of hers, Li Youyou, wrote a blog post celebrating her friend’s memory. Li, who lives in Canada, published the post on Tomb Sweeping Day, a Chinese holiday during which friends and family remember lost loved ones. In her post, Li detailed the allegations against Shen, including the initial and subsequent rapes, the rumors of mental illness, and the lack of sufficient response from Peking University.

Li’s post came on the heels of months of global activism surrounding the #MeToo movement. #MeToo began in October 2017 as a social media movement against sexual harassment and abuse, achieved by encouraging women to share on social media their past experiences with sexual assault. Beginning in the US, the movement quickly gained traction internationally. In China, however, the movement collided with state-sanctioned restrictions on permitted speech and internet use. As the Chinese government shut down conversations and removed posts about #MeToo on China’s two most popular social media apps WeChat and Weibo, social media users innovated. #IAmAlso (我也是) and #RiceBunny (米兔) became popular tags as activists struggled to keep the movement strong (“rice bunny” in Chinese is pronounced similar to “me too” in English).

Li Youyou’s post about Gao’s abuse, the institution’s apparent lack of response, and the emotional damage of social persecution resonated strongly with the fledgling #MeToo movement in China. In the days following, implicated universities responded to the outcry in varying degrees. Shen, now 62, had left Peking University in 2011 and started teaching at Nanjing University and part-time at Shanghai Normal University. Days after Li’s post, both universities dismissed and severed ties with Shen — though both maintain they were never made aware of past accusations against the professor when they hired him.

On April 9th, a former student named Xu Hongyun also accused Shen of sexual harassment. Her claims were published on the Chinese news site Caixin, but state censors swiftly demanded the site take down the article. On the same day, eight students of Peking University submitted to the institution a “freedom of information” request for the school’s full records of the 1998 event. Peking University published documents showing that Shen had been charged with “ethical misconduct” after Gao committed suicide, though the penalty did not carry much more than a slap on the wrist.

Yue Xin’s Letter

Despite their public actions, behind the scenes, universities’ reactions to calls from students and former students was marred by state censorship and cultural gender norms. On April 23, Peking University student Yue Xin — one of the eight students who originally petitioned the university on the 9th — published an open letter on WeChat describing her behind-the-scenes experience with the university during the few weeks since the freedom of information request.

“Battling exhaustion” to write her account, Yue describes how she had been in constant discussion with faculty and leadership. According to her account, university leadership had repeatedly threatened her chances of graduation, insisted her parents would be ashamed of her, and reiterated they could contact her family directly without her consent.

Yue’s letter recounts how, on April 20th, she finally received the following information from the university regarding Gao Yen’s case. First, in 1998, the university considered the meeting held to discuss Shen Yang’s actions of too low priority to have minutes recorded, so no specific records existed. Additionally, another report on the case by the Public Security Bureau was outside of the school’s jurisdiction and therefore inaccessible. Finally, because of a clerical error by the Department of Chinese, the text of Shen’s public emission could not be located. Needless to say, Yue was unsatisfied with the response from the university.

On April 23 at 1:00am, Yue’s advisor entered her dormitory without warning and woke her up. Her advisor demanded she erase all information regarding the information freedom request from all her devices and report to the Office of Student Affairs in the morning to swear in writing she would no longer pursue the matter. Yue was taken home by her parents and barred from returning to campus. According to Yue, the school called her parents directly and threatened to take her diploma away, intimidating and scaring them to the point of hysteria.

In conclusion, the letter lists six appeals from Yue to Peking University