Termination Is Not Prevention: The Multiplicative Model for Reducing Teacher Misconduct

What the Notice Said — and Didn't Say

On September 29, Beijing Institute of Technology (BIT) announced it had terminated the employment of a teacher surnamed Pei after an investigation confirmed "serious violations of teacher professional ethics and conduct standards." The notice cited the 2018 Ministry of Education Ten Guidelines for Professional Conduct of University Teachers in the New Era , which require teachers to care for students and maintain dignified speech and behavior. However, the notice did not quote the specific remarks that triggered the investigation, nor did it detail which facts were verified. The author notes that while this brevity may be procedurally prudent, it leaves the public unable to judge whether the punishment was based on the teacher's course-group comment about "chocolate attributes," alleged private chat screenshots, or other facts. The information vacuum fueled speculation about the teacher's hiring background, academic credentials, and supervisory relationships — none of which have been officially confirmed or addressed.

The article also clarifies a legal distinction: BIT revoked the teacher's position qualification (a school-level action), whereas revocation of the national teacher qualification requires a separate decision by the education administrative department under the Teacher Qualification Regulations .

Punishment Changes the Outcome; Entry Screening Changes the Probability

The author models university teacher management as two gates: an entry gate (hiring screening) and a detection gate (speed of discovering problems). Using a simple multiplicative formula — expected annual harm = (number of new hires) × (proportion with ethics risk) × (1 − entry screening rate) × (detection time in days) × (daily harm) — the article illustrates how improvements at each gate compound.

Loose entry, slow detection (baseline): 50% screening rate, 30-day detection → relative harm = 1.0

Only faster detection : 50% screening, 7-day detection → relative harm = 0.23

Only tighter entry : 90% screening, 30-day detection → relative harm = 0.20

Both tighter entry and faster detection : 90% screening, 7-day detection → relative harm = 0.05

The model shows that acting on only one gate reduces harm to about one-fifth of baseline, while acting on both reduces it to one-twentieth. The core argument: termination is a stop-loss at the last step; it ends one person's damage but does not alter the probability that another risky hire will enter or that the next problem will be detected slowly. "Only punishing the result without examining the entry path means the same path will be walked by someone else."

The Six Days of Silence

From the course suspension to the public notice, BIT took six days. The notice claimed a task force was formed "at the first moment," but the public only learned this six days later. During that silence, the university's website quietly removed the teacher's title, photo, and course information — actions without explanations. This vacuum allowed screenshots, rumors, and personal-background investigations to spread unchecked. The author acknowledges investigations need time, but argues that stating "an investigation has started, results expected in X days" would have stabilized the situation better than silence and reduced disorderly public scrutiny.

The article also stresses that the course topic — women's rights in the digital age — was not the problem; the problem was the use of a demeaning internet meme to label students. "The target of discipline is the conduct, not the viewpoint. Conflating the two distorts the discussion whichever way it turns."

Three Actionable Levers

Returning to the model, the author identifies three concrete improvements:

Raise the entry screening rate : Make ethics vetting, trial lectures, and peer review substantive, not just a check of degrees and publications. Strictly enforce conflict-of-interest recusal for candidates with personal or academic connections, and publish hiring information and procedures.

Shorten detection time : Implement pre-launch course content review, regular student evaluations, and anonymous feedback channels — mechanisms that surface problems earlier and more controllably than viral social-media exposure.

Write clearer notices : Within privacy limits, specify which facts were established, which regulations were invoked, and safeguard the accused's right to appeal and remedy. Transparent handling serves both students and the accused.

References

[1] China News Service. "BIT: Cancels Pei's Graduate Supervisor Qualification, Terminates Employment," 2026-09-29. [2] Tencent News. "'I Support Men Being Inferior' Female Professor Fired! BIT Revokes Position Qualification," 2026-09-29. [3] NetEase. "Follow-up on BIT Female Teacher's 'Women's Rights Course': Website Quietly Swaps Photo, Removes Title, Erases Course Name," 2026-09. [4] State Council. Teacher Qualification Regulations , 1995. [5] Ministry of Education. Ten Guidelines for Professional Conduct of University Teachers in the New Era , 2018.