Here, Frank is my reply - and a serious proposition - Teachers Discussion

Frank, you have made a mistake. In arguments and disputes if someone says something that infuriates you - you should never respond to him while you are in that state of mind wait a while until you have calmed down and then look at it again. You will generally find you will respond differently

I will reply to your latest posting paragraph by paragraph.

Para 1 - The invective you quote was uttered by just one person. He happened to be the man I challenged in his treatment of Nanhai Neusoft. His postings have thrown up some very big questions and I believe I am close to some very big answers that he wont want anyone else to know about. It is generally the case when people such as him lose their rag as he did, that they are hiding something. All he has to do if my suspicions about his complaint are so wrong and so unfair is to say, step by step, exactly what happened that led to the predicament he claims he was landed in. He evidently doesnt intend to do this and there is a reason for him keeping quiet about it

Para 2 This was not an outburst, Frank . All I did was to query you on what appear to be contradictions in your own attitudes shown through many of your postings. Whether or not you intend to respond to any further contact from me must be your decision and I have no comment to make about it.

Para 3 I didnt suggest that KJ would be dismayed by your posting, why should I claim that when you were generally in agreement to what he had said. I also agreed with his posting and said so loud and clear. I did say that certain other people may find what he said to be unacceptable and squirm in their seats with frustration. This was because KJ was putting across his view that teachers often do have cases to answer too. That view is not generally supported in this forum.

In answer to the latter half of your paragraph I accept that you have claimed to be fair and I accept that you generally aspire to be but I have yet to see you raise even a doubt about any other teachers behaviour except that of Dr.Cross and even that expression of doubt caused you some evident anguish.

Para 4 - I accept that the word attack cannot be taken literally but it nevertheless stands good as a meaningful figure of speech in this case. In an earlier posting of yours you cited generally derogatory comments made by other people in a context where you agreed with them. These included Mr Yi and someone else who supported him. I therefore contend that you jumped on their bandwagon of attack. For the record, I entirely accept that you have never called me names or been disrespectful but then I have not accused you of such you seem to have presumed it.

Moreover, in my posting To My Few Detractors, you say that I complained of unfair treatment. Where did I claim that, Frank? I have checked through that posting again and nowhere did I make such a claim. I have not made any such claim in any of my other postings either. The fact of the matter is that I think most of you have such biased views against schools simply because some of them are bad apples in the barrel. Others have no idea how to see holes in some complaints and there is a general refusal to look objectively at any challenge that I choose to make no matter that I go to great lengths to explain these challenges. I could use the word unfair if I wanted to but it isnt an adequate word to describe what in reality is a barrage of such subjectivity that I am amazed that teachers in here who one would normally think are pretty smart people - include many who arent so smart after all. You, I see as one of the smarter ones, which is why I wrote to you privately.

Do you know, Frank, that in all of these increasingly heated exchanges, not one of you has shown me the courtesy of asking me to discuss how and why I reached the conclusions I did. Not one of you at any time has sought to address anything I have said. I put it to you that in general terms, my conclusions and explanations thereof have been very well composed. In the main it does seem that all this flak coming at me is because I have covered things well enough to have headed some people off at the pass, so to speak.

Para 5 Here again, Frank, you are wrong. I have not accused you of using the phrase Will not tolerate It is ME using that phrase. Yes, you did express misgivings about Dr Crosss complaint but they were very reluctant misgivings and you were quite clearly hoping that Dr.Cross would make a return visit with some further information that would negate your misgivings. Dr.Cross however, did no such thing so we were both left without his confirmation of what was so private.

Counter to that, was what he did say namely that he had sought to break his contract, then he had run away and had subsequently been caught by the police and was being thrown out of China on his ear! How much empathy do you need, Frank? Dr.Cross was obviously hugely misrepresenting his complaint and in reality had acted arrogantly, irresponsibly and illegally in that order? In challenging Dr Cross I scored a bullseye, which vindicates what I said about him and justifies my challenging these dodgy-looking complaints in general. Other than Dr Cross, Frank, you have not come down against any other teacher whose complaints I have challenged, nor have you sought in any way to get to the bottom of any of their complaints nor my challenges thereto.

Para 6 Yet again, Frank, you are accusing me of ascribing words to you that were never used at all. The words you highlight in red were not uttered by you and nowhere did I say that you had. Your general attitude and reactions do however, in my opinion, point to a general reluctance to accept that teachers are sometimes to blame and that schools are generally not. Moreover, I do not take offence at anyone disagreeing with my views providing they take the trouble to properly consider what those views are. I see no-one trying to keep an open mind on these complaints I have challenged nor on my challenges themselves. Yet you claim there are many - please name three of them.

Para 7 Yet another exaggeration, Frank. In your posting you highlight four issues where I have said something you dont agree with. Three of those were not as you accuse me of - the subject of any private correspondence between you and I I have made those statements in other postings or based on what you said in other postings. The fourth such highlight does catch me with my pants down I will admit. I recalled you saying what you did but I made a mistake in thinking it had been made elsewhere. My sincere apologies for this. I could also explain why I said it but as you have rightly protested that it was part of a private communication, Ill leave it alone.

However, please tell me why it is you accuse me of giving you a lecture about the legal justice systems in the UK and USA. I made no mention whatsoever about the legal systems in either of those countries. I made no lecture about any legal system at all. What I did do was to explain to you three examples of my past working experience to demonstrate other points and the legal content was confined to a fairly brief reference to contractual claims in no way connected with the issues going on in this forum.

The rest of your posting in fact refers to matters that you also chose to say in the private correspondence so as you have objected to me making any disclosure, I will not address them here.

This forum, in my opinion, stinks! It is populated by so many people who have minds closed shut like steel traps. This series of exchanges has shown that time and again. I have stuck grimly to my points throughout whilst others have jumped up and down acting in some cases in a very unprofessional manner indeed. It has gone beyond discussion and has now become a stone-throwing exercise on the part of most of those who are my detractors. The whole thing has gone into perpetual motion, where my claims are met with accusations which in turn require my explanation and in turn yet more accusations come back at me and so on. Im sure most of us are thoroughly fed up with it all.

Therefore, Frank, I make you a serious challenge and the rest of the gang can witness it if they wish but not be allowed to join in or in any way to electronically heckle

1) I propose that You and I enter into an electronic debate Just you and me and that it be conducted on e-mail.

2) That You and I enter into an exchange of numbered e-mails in which I will objectively state my challenges to complaints point-by-point and that I explain objectively why it is I have made them. In turn you would have the right of reply providing it be done equally objectively. We would both have the right to ongoing counter-replies as long as these remain relevant.

3) That this debate be confined to two complaints only these being the ones that have dominated the content of this forum so far. These complaints being those made by Dr Cross and by Mr Yi

4) That anyone who wishes to know what is being said can register his interest before we start and that he gives us an e-mail address to which we both undertake to send copies of our e-mails as they are transmitted.

5) That no third party is allowed to contribute anything nor question what either of us may say to the other. In other words we run it as a Quiet Room and we both undertake to honour this and to ignore incoming e-mails from other parties (but see 6 below).

6) That where possible we invite the plaintiff to clarify his claims or to provide further information that appears to be necessary. (Though I doubt that Dr Cross is still in the Country).

7) That if you accept this challenge, we both drop right out of any further argument and discussion about these particular complaints in the open forum forever. For my part I will additionally undertake not to enter into any new issues until after we have concluded our debates.

As our debate goes along we formally close our cases as and when we feel it appropriate and that once closed, they STAY CLOSED.

If you accept the foregoing we can go private and fine-tune the rules of engagement. Not only will this proposition kill what has become an acrimonious roundabout but it will see the two principal complaints made the subject of a serious attempt to examine them objectively from both our viewpoints.

If you have read this far, Frank, that is my proposition. We are both honest enough not to manipulate it and are both articulate enough to discuss the subjects quietly, respectfully, and objectively.

Over to you

John

More Applause - but Frank? Is that really You? - Teachers Discussion

Mr KJ

Thanks too for what you have said and I think Frank has been brave in a way for congratulating you. You may have noticed in here that certain of the contributors, including Frank, will not tolerate any teacher being criticised or called to account for his suspicious claims. The same people openly claim that schools in general are always at fault, and are always dishonest, whereas teachers are shining white no matter what. Thus I think your attempt to put across a balanced view will grate somewhat with some people and cause them to squirm in their seats with frustration.

Frank - Your agreement with KJ's comment about dealing with our own sense of moral justice etc is very pertinent indeed, for I am trying to do exactly that in exposing suspicious complaints that arise on here. Yet for some reasons best known to themselves a number of other teachers including yourself cannot wait to tear me apart for having a bad opinion of those who think they can say whatever they want in pursuit of revenge.

You have openly said to me that whilst you believe it is right for schools to be treated to fair play, such fairness must not appear on this forum. Why not? Why should schools be denied fair play at the complaint stage. Let the complaining teachers be fair with their complaints. Where else is fairness to appear if the teachers who do the complaining can't show it here?

You agree with KJ's belief - that if an employee is discovered to have discrepancies in his papers such as false documents or resume information, then the employer has every right to terminate his employment - Your agreement to this is really news to me, Frank, considering that one of the complaints I have taken issue with and which you have attacked me for - appears very likely to have involved a major paperwork error quite probably of this very kind.

I agree with KJ's contention in this context too and I have expounded various visa and contract procedures in here to demonstrate that. You too can see this for yourself if you care to study my postings. However, for as long as you refuse to accept, in principle, that there can possibly be anything wrong with teachers' claims. You will continue to run with blinkers on.

Finally, KJ's statement that it is necessary to accept that teachers are also partially responsible for their own mistreatment, is definitely new to you, Frank but is what I have been arguing for all this time. You might agree that schools are entitled to fair play - but only as long as it appears at later date in some faraway corner. The trouble is that you are not prepared to admit to any situation where that fair play is being abused by an unscrupulous teacher. You and others are not prepared to be confronted by such counter-claims in what you have all clearly presumed is your own forum.

So, Frank, when might we see you acting publicly on this very appropriate advice from KJ? You've wholeheartedly agreed with it so you will be anxious to be seen to be following it, I hope.

John

Applause, applause! - Teachers Discussion

KJ,

Thanks again for another excellent and thoughtful post. I agree with you that both options for work are reasonable. When I came to China three years ago, I envisioned teaching in various places, but in the end, its been better for me to remain mostly in one place; but I definitely agree the alternative is perhaps more desirable and preferable for others.

My decision was borne from experience. Although my spoken Chinese is quite limited (to say the least), 95% of my friends in China are Chinese. I reserve most of my discussions with other foreigners for this forum. I find that keeping company with Chinese students and other friends is my best way to understand China more and more; little by little. My friends and students are my teachers. This situation also allows me the chance to engage in discussions about topics not always appropriate or too advanced for many of my students and classes.

Since coming to China, my health problems have worsened in some ways. My friends are extremely helpful and generous in these times of brief illness, and I also have the benefit of a personal doctor who helps me secure necessary daily medicines and introduces me to various specialists. For example, during the past week, a problem I had been experiencing with my knee became much worse, bringing constant pain and great difficulty in walking. It appeared knee surgery would be required. After an MRI and consulting with two knee specialists (again thanks to my friend, Dr. Wang, and others) surgery has been ruled out, and alternative treatments are being planned.

I feel my home is here in Nanjing, and would be most distressed if I had to develop this kind of personal network again in another city. After two rather frustrating years here, I returned to the U.S. last summer. Within a short time, I found I missed China tremendously, and yearned to return and continue my China experience. When I came back, I made the grave mistake of choosing a very different location from Jiangsu, in which I lasted exactly five weeks! I quickly came back to Nanjing, and have found much more happiness and comfort here than I did the first time. This is mainly due to my introspection and demands on myself for better tolerance and acceptance of things I cannot change. I embrace the positive things about living here more, and they have now eclipsed the negative. Im quite lucky in this way.

Enough of all that! Blah, blah, blah

The real reason I am responding to you (assuming you and other readers havent abandoned my post at this point) is to address a few of your astute comments

First: we must also deal with our own sense of moral justice and determine from there whether or not we are sacrificing our own values in order to convince ourselves that our current position is acceptable. Yes! I find Im extremely flexible and adaptable with social traditions and habits in China. When in Rome is easy for me when it comes to Chinese cuisine, ways of daily life, etc. Where I am far less flexible or malleable, almost rigid at times, is in business. My motto is: If I wouldnt accept it from my school, company, or boss in America, then Im not going to accept it here.

One argument that never holds water with me, is when I find myself in friendly (or unfriendly on occasion) disputes with unprofessional and/or unethical managers, they often suggest (at their peril): You should be more Chinese This is the Chinese way of management and business. Hogwash! Bad business is bad business. I remind them that the reason I was recruited and employed by their school or profit-driven outfit is because I am NOT Chinese! They want the profit-making benefit of my foreign-ness, but when things become gridlocked they want me to be more Chinese. Forget it! They cant have it both ways. I also tell them that the Chinese way of management is fine perhaps if your staff is entirely comprised of Chinese employees (poor abused folks), but these guys choose to open schools that requires, and greatly depends upon the involvement and cooperation of foreigners.

That being said, I also heartily agree with you when you state: If an employer has discovered discrepancies, such as false documentation or erroneous resume information, I feel that said employer is well within their rights to terminate the contract. Furthermore, if an employee has agreed to the terms of the contract - flimsy as Chinese contracts may be, he or she should follow those terms to the letter.

Not only that, I believe that if I am accepting money from a school (no matter how unprofessional and poorly managed they might be) I must give my very best to students. I plan my lessons carefully, and give great consideration to my students needs; anything less of unfair of me. But it is because I consider myself a professional, that I also demand professional treatment in return. And as you and many others know all too well, this is where the problems begin and often detonate later.

Finally, I applaud you loudly for your statement: We cannot expect to see a dramatic change in this EFL in China business until we accept that the damage has not only been inflicted by unscrupulous recruiters and administrations, but that it has also been, to a lesser degree, caused by we the teachers if for no other reason than by our oft placid acceptance of the status quo.

For the second time in the past several days, I say Bravo! to you, KJ for your well-stated wisdom.

Apologies to you and any other suffering readers for my long-winded reply!