Barnard, 4+4, and the Death of Thought 巴納德、4+4、與思考的死亡

Every now and then, the internet confuses itself with a court. Then a bonfire. Then a battlefield.
網路時不時會把自己誤認成法庭，接著變成火刑場，最後成了戰場。

This past week, a sordid affair involving a Chinese hospital doctor and a trainee lit up the nation’s social media. What should have been a localized scandal—a doctor cheating, allegedly abandoning a patient mid-anesthesia—swiftly metastasized into a nationwide referendum on medical training, gender, and the hierarchy of American colleges. The mob didn’t just want heads. It wanted credentials revoked and educational models dismantled.
上週，一起涉及中國某醫院醫生與實習醫師的醜聞在社交媒體上引爆。本應是地方性的倫理事件——醫生出軌，並疑似在麻醉手術中擅離病人——卻迅速演變為一場全國性的大審判，針對醫學教育、性別，以及美國大學體系的階級制度。網民們不僅想要人頭落地，還要學歷作廢，教育制度推倒重來。

That’s when it got embarrassing.
尷尬，也就是從這裡開始的。

Let’s begin with the “4+4” medical program. Informed critics might debate its pedagogical merits. The mob, however, decided it was a scam. A backdoor. A shortcut for rich kids with foreign degrees and good hair. One might think they’d never heard of how most of the Western world trains its doctors.
我們不妨從「4+4」醫學培養模式談起。真正關心教育的人或許可以就其理念與訓練架構展開討論，但群情早已草率定案：這是個騙局，是走後門，是給那些手握洋文憑、出身優渥、光彩照人的年輕人開的捷徑。依照他們的反應，看來整個西方世界的醫師好像從來不是這樣訓練出來的。

The “4+4” model is not an invention of Beijing elites—it’s how the United States produces physicians. Students earn an undergraduate degree in any subject, then apply to medical school. The result is not less education, but more breadth. Humanities majors become surgeons. Engineers become psychiatrists. The system prizes adaptability and maturity, not rote biology scores.
「4+4」並非北京菁英的創造，而是美國培養醫生的標準方式。學生先完成一個本科學位，科系不限，之後再申請醫學院。這種方式不是在減少訓練，而是在拓展視野。人文學生可以成為外科醫師，工程師可以轉做精神科醫生。這個體系重視的是應變能力與成熟心智，而不是死記硬背的生物成績。

To call this unqualified is not a critique of China’s reforms. It’s a confession of parochialism.
把這種制度批評為「不合格」，並不是對中國改革的質疑，而是對自己眼界狹隘的無意自白。

Then came the Barnard discourse. Ah, Barnard—Columbia University’s affiliate women’s college, target of every dropout who thinks U.S. admissions are rigged. Online, accusations flew: Barnard students “pretend” to go to Columbia, the degrees don’t count, and anyway, she studied economics, not pre-med—so what is she even doing in an operating room?
然後是關於巴納德的一輪抨擊。啊，巴納德——哥倫比亞大學的附屬女子學院，總是成為那些落榜者口中「美國名校有黑幕」的證據。網上謠言四起：巴納德學生是假裝讀哥大，學位不算數；更別說她唸的是經濟學，根本沒學醫——那她憑什麼出現在手術室？

This is the kind of argument that can only thrive in a vacuum of fact. Barnard is part of Columbia. Not “adjacent to.” Not “near.” Part of. Columbia professors. Columbia degrees. Columbia diploma. If you’re going to rage, at least rage accurately.
這種言論只能在資訊真空中茁壯。巴納德是哥倫比亞大學的一部分。不是「靠近」，不是「旁邊」，而是「從屬於」。哥大的教授、哥大的課程、哥大的畢業證書。你若非得生氣，也該先搞清楚事實。

But then, accuracy was never the point. The point was punishment—especially for a woman who looked too polished, rose too fast, and committed the cardinal sin of being both young and visible.
不過說到底，事實從來不是重點。重點是懲罰——尤其是針對那種過於光鮮、上升太快、犯下了「既年輕又惹眼」這一大罪的女人。

And somewhere along the way, the entire narrative flipped. What began as a man’s colossal, well-documented failure morphed—through innuendo, projection, and a generous helping of misogyny—into a woman’s crime. His transgression was diluted, even excused, because after all, he had merely “fallen for a femme fatale.” The story had been made neater, more palatable—by blaming the woman.
而在某個時刻，整件事被徹底顛倒了。原本證據確鑿的一場男人的彌天大錯，透過捕風捉影、添油加醋，以及大量性別偏見，竟然變成了一個女人的錯。他的過失被稀釋，甚至被原諒，因為說到底，他不過是「攤上了紅顏禍水」。故事因此更順了、更合胃口了——因為指責女人總是更容易的。

It’s tempting to excuse all this as the chaos of the internet: fickle, furious, and gone in a week. But that would be too easy. When crowds misidentify the enemy, they weaken the cause. When they conflate scandal with systems, they stall reform. And when they mock rather than learn, they don’t just fail to make things better—they make sure the next conversation is dumber.
我們也許會說，這不過是網路的亂象：情緒多變、怒氣沖天、一週即散。但這種說法太輕鬆了。當人群錯認敵人，他們削弱了真正的訴求；當他們將醜聞與制度混為一談，改革的空間便被拖延；當他們選擇譏笑而不是學習，他們不只是讓事情無法改善——他們還確保下一次的討論更加愚蠢。

The “Dong Missy” Incident—as it’s now mockingly called on Chinese social media—began as a question of ethics. It ends as a case study in collective insecurity. One doctor may have abandoned a patient. But a much larger group abandoned thought.
這起如今在中國網路上被戲稱為「董小姐事件」的風波，本該是一場倫理爭議，如今卻成了一場集體不安的社會心理教材。一位醫生或許拋下了病人，但更多的人，拋下的是思考。