作者：何文龙
编辑：黄吉洲 校对：冯仍 翻译：周敏
本人何文龙，安徽庐江人。
中山大学翻译硕士研究生毕业，长期从事英语教学与文本翻译工作。
一直是基督教传道人，我所在的教会是RPC，上一份工作是广西理工职业技术学院英语专任教师，目前在广西梧州一所高校任职英语教师，已经被约谈要迫使我离开。
原因是，我是基督教传道人，和地下教会联系密切，和境外藏人与维吾尔人联系密切。我曾因为在教育系统，搜集了大量中共如何控制学校学生、教师信仰内容的一手资料。
我的职业路径清晰而普通：进入高校，从事教学，参与学术与语言相关工作。这本应是一条稳定、明确、可持续的道路。
但现在，这条道路被迫中断。
我已被有关方面约谈，并被明确要求“离开当前岗位”。没有正式文件，没有公开程序，但结论已经非常清楚：
我不再适合继续留在现有的高校体系之中。
这篇文章，是我对此的公开说明。
一、我做了什么
我没有参与任何非法活动，没有从事任何激烈行为，也没有组织任何对抗性事件。
我所做的事情，其实非常简单：
作为高校教师，完成日常教学工作
进行翻译与文本整理
发起并参与“经典与思想文本翻译项目”
与一些非体制化的社会群体保持联系
这些行为，在任何一个正常社会中，都应属于个人的职业延伸与文化实践。
但在现实中，它们被重新定义了。
二、问题不在于“我做了什么”，而在于“我属于哪一类人”
我逐渐意识到，真正的问题，并不在具体行为本身，而在于一种更深层的分类逻辑：
一个体制内的人，是否可以同时保持“非完全同质化”的状态？
换句话说：
是否必须完全一致
是否必须在所有层面都被纳入同一逻辑
是否允许存在边界之外的联系与实践
我的处境说明了一点：
答案是否定的。
三、所谓“稳定”，正在变成一种单向要求
体制内的稳定，通常被理解为一种保障：
岗位稳定、收入稳定、身份稳定。
但现实是，这种稳定正在附带越来越明确的前提：
行为必须可预期
联系必须可解释
表达必须在既定范围之内
当一个人超出这些范围，即使只是部分超出，他的“稳定性”就会被重新评估。
而这种评估，并不需要公开标准。
四、我被要求离开的真正含义
从形式上看，这是一次岗位调整；
但从实质上看，这是一个信号：
你可以存在，但不能以现在的方式存在。
也就是说：
你可以继续做教师，但要改变你是谁
你可以继续留在体系内，但要放弃你的一部分现实联系与实践
这不是一个简单的职业选择，而是一个身份重塑的要求。
五、我为什么不能接受
我不是不能理解现实规则，也不是不能做出妥协。
但问题在于：
这种妥协已经超出了职业调整的范围，而进入了“自我否认”的层面。
如果我接受：
我需要放弃已经长期投入的翻译工作
需要切断既有的社会联系
需要将自己压缩为一个“完全合规的单一身份”
那么我所保留下来的，只是一个形式上的岗位，而不是一个真实的人。
六、我并没有“选择在野”，但我被推向那里
我没有组织任何政治力量，也没有试图成为所谓的反对者。
但当一个人无法被既有结构容纳时，他的状态就已经发生变化。
“在野”，在这里并不是一种主动选择，而是一种被动结果。
它意味着：
你不再被正式体系承认
你必须重新寻找自己的位置
你开始在制度边缘生存
这正是我现在所处的位置。
七、这不是个体问题，而是结构问题
如果只是个体冲突，那么可以归结为个人选择。
但如果类似的情况不断出现，那么问题就不再是个体，而是结构。
我并不认为自己是特殊的。
相反，我更可能只是一个典型案例：
一个受过高等教育的人
一个进入体制内的人
一个尝试保留部分独立空间的人
最终被要求退出。
八、我将面对什么
离开体制，并不意味着结束，而意味着不确定的开始。
我将失去：
稳定的职业路径
明确的社会身份
可预期的生活结构
但与此同时，我也将面对一个更真实的问题：
在没有体制保障的情况下，一个人如何继续存在？
这个问题，没有标准答案。
九、我写这篇文章的目的
我不是在控诉，也不是在动员。
我只是做一件非常简单的事情：
把一个原本会被“静默处理”的过程，公开出来。
因为如果所有类似的变化都保持沉默，那么它们就不会被理解，也不会被讨论。
十、结语
我没有成为我曾经设想的那种人。
我没有在体制内稳定上升，也没有沿着既定路径发展。
相反，我正在被迫离开。
但这并不意味着失败。
它只是说明，在某些结构中，一个人无法同时保留：
职业身份
现实联系
自我一致性
当这三者发生冲突时，总要有一个被放弃。
而我选择保留后两者。
这就是我此刻的处境。
Why I Am Forced to Leave: A Public Statement by a University Teacher
Author: He Wenlong
Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Zhou Min
Abstract: The author frankly states that writing this article is not an accusation or a mobilization, but simply making public a process that would otherwise have been “silently handled,” because if all similar changes remain silent, they will be impossible to understand or discuss.
I am He Wenlong, a native of Lujiang, Anhui.
I graduated from Sun Yat-sen University with a Master of Arts in Translation and Interpretation, and have long been engaged in English teaching and text translation work.
I have always been a Christian preacher; the church I belong to is the RPC. My previous job was as a full-time English teacher at the Guangxi Polytechnic Vocational and Technical College. Currently, I hold a position as an English teacher at a university in Wuzhou, Guangxi, and I have already been summoned for talks to pressure me to leave.
The reason is that I am a Christian preacher, have close ties with house churches (underground churches), and maintain close contact with overseas Tibetans and Uyghurs. Because I was within the education system, I collected a large amount of first-hand materials on how the CCP controls the religious beliefs of students and teachers in schools.
My career path was clear and ordinary: enter a university, engage in teaching, and participate in academic and language-related work. This should have been a stable, clear, and sustainable path.
But now, this path has been forcibly interrupted.
I have been summoned for talks by the relevant authorities and explicitly required to “leave my current post.” There is no formal document, no public procedure, but the conclusion is very clear:
I am no longer suitable to continue remaining within the existing university system.
This article is my public statement regarding this matter.
1. What I Have Done
I have not participated in any illegal activities, have not engaged in any radical behavior, and have not organized any confrontational events.
What I have done is, in fact, very simple:
As a university teacher, completed daily teaching tasks.
Conducted translation and text editing.
Initiated and participated in the “Classic and Intellectual Text Translation Project.”
Maintained contact with some non-institutionalized social groups.
In any normal society, these actions should belong to an individual’s professional extension and cultural practice.
But in reality, they have been redefined.
2. The Problem Is Not “What I Have Done,” But “Which Category of Person I Belong To”
I gradually realized that the real problem does not lie in the specific actions themselves, but in a deeper logic of classification:
Can a person within the system simultaneously maintain a state of “not being completely homogenized”?
In other words:
Is total uniformity mandatory?
Is it mandatory to be incorporated into the same logic at all levels?
Is it permitted to have contacts and practices that exist outside the boundaries?
My situation illustrates one point:
The answer is no.
3. So-called “Stability” Is Becoming a One-Way Requirement
Stability within the system is usually understood as a guarantee:
Stability of the post, stability of income, and stability of identity.
But the reality is that this stability is being attached to increasingly explicit prerequisites:
Behavior must be predictable.
Contacts must be explainable.
Expression must remain within established limits.
When a person exceeds these ranges—even if only partially—his “stability” will be re-evaluated.
And this evaluation does not require public standards.
4. The True Meaning of Being Asked to Leave
From a formal perspective, this is a job adjustment;
But from a substantive perspective, it is a signal:
You can exist, but not in the way you do now.
That is to say:
You can continue to be a teacher, but you must change who you are.
You can continue to stay within the system, but you must give up a part of your existing social contacts and practices.
This is not a simple professional choice, but a demand for identity reshaping.
5. Why I Cannot Accept This
It is not that I cannot understand the rules of reality, nor that I cannot make compromises.
But the problem lies here:
This kind of compromise has exceeded the scope of professional adjustment and entered the level of “self-denial.”
If I accept:
I need to give up the translation work I have long been invested in.
I need to cut off existing social ties.
I need to compress myself into a “fully compliant, singular identity.”
Then what I would have preserved is only a formal post, not a real human being.
6. I Did Not “Choose to Be in the Wild,” But I Am Being Pushed There
I have not organized any political forces, nor have I attempted to become a so-called “dissenter.”
But when a person can no longer be accommodated by the existing structure, his status has already changed.
“In the wild” (Zai Ye) is not an active choice here, but a passive result.
It means:
You are no longer recognized by the formal system.
You must find your position anew.
You begin to survive on the margins of the system.
This is exactly where I am now.
7. This Is Not an Individual Problem, But a Structural Problem
If it were only an individual conflict, it could be attributed to personal choice.
But if similar situations continue to emerge, the problem is no longer the individual, but the structure.
I do not believe I am special.
On the contrary, I am more likely just a typical case:
A person who has received higher education.
A person who entered the system.
A person who tries to retain a part of independent space.
Ultimately being required to exit.
8. What I Will Face
Leaving the system does not mean an end, but means an uncertain beginning.
I will lose:
A stable career path.
A clear social identity.
A predictable life structure.
But at the same time, I will also face a more real question:
Without the guarantee of the system, how does a person continue to exist?
There is no standard answer to this question.
9. My Purpose in Writing This Article
I am not accusing, nor am I mobilizing.
I am simply doing one very simple thing:
Making public a process that would have been “silently handled.”
Because if all similar changes remain silent, they will not be understood, nor will they be discussed.
10. Conclusion
I did not become the kind of person I once envisioned.
I did not rise stably within the system, nor did I develop along a set path.
On the contrary, I am being forced to leave.
But this does not mean failure.
It simply illustrates that in certain structures, a person cannot simultaneously retain:
Professional identity
Actual social contacts
Self-consistency
When these three conflict, one must always be abandoned.
And I choose to retain the latter two.
This is my situation at this moment.
