Very helpful comments from hcs

from http://www1.chinesenewsnet.com/gb/others/jump18.html

I feel I must indicate several facts here:

To begin with, when anyone chooses a subject of study for their Ph.D, they will undoubtedly choose a subject that they will be content to research for. When a person applies for a Ph.D, they preprare to study the topic that they have chosen for the next several years. Therefore, a student studying for a Ph.D would not expect to have their topic of study suddendly switched, especially if this exchange of research topics is conducted without the consent of the student. However, this is exactly the course of action Ms. Mazumdar took against Zihui Tang. She forced Ms. Tang to exchange her current research topic for one not remotely similar to the original subject Ms. Tang was assigned, and did this without Ms. Tang’s consent. To exacerbate the situation, Ms. Mazumdar took this course of action against Zihui Tang mutliple times. In addition, the last subject requires her to disgrace her motherland.

Secondly, I would like to point out the fact that Zihui Tang was required to report her whereabouts and actions multiple times to Ms. Mazumdar throughout the year. These required reports were necessary even during the vacation periods and holidays. Hence, Ms. Mazumdar would be constantly aware of where Zihui was, whether it was during the schoolyear or during the holidays and break periods. Ms. Mazumdar would know Zihui’s whereabouts, her actions, and everything she did. I am not sure if anyone else has noticed this, but does not Ms. Mazumdar’s act resemble an act similar to an invasion of privacy and personal space? Does it not resemble a violation of the basic human right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? After all, how can anyone be happy if he/she is constantly aware that someone else is continually keeping tabs on everything he/she does? Is it really essential to require that much information on one student anyway? Is this course of action even legal?

Thirdly, Ms. Mazumdar has mistreated and disrespected Zihui Tang. Upon Ms. Tang’s objection to having her research topic switched, Ms. Mazumdar responded with a statement similar to a threat. She claimed that if Zihui Tang did not agree to cooperate and follow her (Ms. Mazumdar’s) orders, Ms. Tang would be assigned an F grade and would be obstructed from earning her Ph.D. This is a tragedy to any student, no matter how young or how old, and enough to scare any education-minded person into submission.

On a personal note, I must also bring focus to the fact that Ms. Mazumdar has humiliated Zihui Tang through various methods. One method that comes to mind is Ms. Mazumdar’s reply to Ms. Tang’s protest against the surplus tasks and workload that Ms. Mazumdar added to Ms. Tang’s already packed schedule. As a professor of Chinese studies, Ms. Mazumdar should be aware that to a Chinese native, being told that he/she must go and see a psychologist is one of the worst humiliations a person can experience. To force a person to see a psychologist is to attack the person’s mentality; it implies that an irregularity in a person’s mental processing is present, and the Chinese are horrified by this implication. However, this is just what Ms. Mazumdar did to Zihui Tang. Upon hearing Ms. Tang’s appeals to a lighter workload, Ms. Mazumdar responded by forcing Ms. Tang to attend an appointment with a psychologist.
This case involving Zihui Tang is not commonplace, and should not be treated as one. To understand this situation accurately, it is imperative to consider the facts and not rely simply on previously held assumptions.