Source: https://www.douban.com/note/65202440/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 07:17:57+00:00

Document:
②Benjamin Schwartz: In Seazch of Wealth and Power, Yen Fu and the West. Cambridge, MA: Hauand Univelsity Press, 1964, P. 19.
“See” indicates that the cited authority clearly supports, but not directly states the proposition given. Used instead of [no signal], to indicate that the proposition follows from the cited authority. There is an inferential step between the authority cited and the proposition it supports.
"See" may also be used to refer to a cited authority that contains dicta in support of the proposition being made.
Example: At this time, the AEDPA 1-year statute of limitations had run. See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 181-182, 150 L. Ed. 2d 251, 121 S. Ct. 2120 (2001) (holding that the statute of limitations is not tolled during the pendency of a federal petition).
Example: Similar questions have arisen under the federal endangered Species Act. See, e.g., United States v. Winnie, 97 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 1996).
Example: Before 1997, the IDEA was silent on the subject of private school reimbursement, but courts had granted such reimbursement as “appropriate” relief under principles of equity pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C ). See Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370, 105 S.Ct. 1996 (“[W]e are confident that by empowering the court to grant ‘appropriate’ relief Congress meant to include retroactive reimbursement to parents as an available remedy in a proper case.”); 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C ) (“In any action brought under this paragraph, the court ... shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate.”).
Example: Although this standard requires us to give considerable deference to the state courts, AEDPA deference is not a rubber stamp. See Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 240, 265, 125 S. Ct. 2317, 162 L. Ed. 2d 196 (2005) (refusing to accept a state court's "dismissive and strained interpretation" of the prisoner's evidence on habeas review and, not that "[d]eference does not by definition preclude relief").
Example: Relying upon NAACP, we concluded that the South Carolina Supreme Court's interpretation of a state penal statute had impermissibly broadened the scope of that statute beyond what a fair reading provided, in violation of due process. See 378 U.S. at 361-362.
This indicates that the cited authority constitutes additional material that supports the proposition. The cited authority supports the proposition with which the citation is associated, but less directly than that indicated by "see" or "accord." "See also" may be used to introduce a case that supports the stated proposition, but is somehow distinguishable from previously cited cases. "See also" is sometimes used to refer readers to authorities already cited or discussed. The use of a parenthetical explanation of the sources relevance following a citation introduced by "see also" is also encouraged.
Example: "... omitting the same mental element in a similar weapons possession statute, such as RCW 9.41.040, strongly indicates that the omission was purposeful and that strict liability was intended. See generally State v. Alvarez, 74 Wash.App. 250, 260, 872 P.2d 1123 (1994) (omission of "course of conduct" language in criminal counterpart to civil antiharassment act indicated "Legislature consciously chose to criminalize a single act rather than a course of conduct.") aff'd, 128 Wash.2d 1, 904 P.2d 754 (1995); see also State v. Roberts, 117 Wash.2d 576, 586, 817 P.2d 855 (1991) (use of certain statutory language in one instance, and different language in another, evinces different legislative intent) (citing cases)."
Source: State v. Anderson, 141 Wash.2d 357, 5 P.3d 1247, 1253 (2000).
Example: See also Martin v. Wilks, 490 U.S. 755, 784, n. 21, 104 L. Ed. 2d 835, 109 S. Ct. 2180 (1989) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (it would be anomalous to allow courts to sit in review of judgments entered by courts of equal, or greater, authority (citing Rooker and Feldman)).
Example: See also Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325, 1339 (C.A.Fed.2005) (“[S]oftware code ... drives the functional nucleus of the finished computer product.” (quoting Imagexpo, L.L.C. v. Microsoft Corp., 299 F.Supp.2d 550, 553 (E.D.Va.2003))).
Example: In Ash, the disabled student attended private school beginning in 1983, but his parents did not provide meaningful notice to the school district until 1989. Ash v. Lake Oswego Sch. Dist. No. 7J, 766 F.Supp. 852, 853-55, 864 (D.Or.1991); see also Ash, 980 F.2d at 586 (incorporating the district court's account of the facts).
Example: The Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State's electors to "participate fully in the federal electoral process," as provided in 3 U.S.C. 5. 779 So. 2d at 270 (slip op. at 27); see also Palm Beach Canvassing Bd. v. Harris, 772 So. 2d 1273, 2000 WL 1725434, (Fla. 2000).
 A. Kierkegaard Anthology, ed. by Robert Bretall, Princeton University Press, 1973, P. 340.
Professor Wang Hui of Tsinghua University, the former editor of the journal 《读书》(Dushu) and a well-known standard bearer of China’s “New Left” intellectuals has been accused of plagiarism in an article this week published in an academic literary journal 《文艺研究》(Wenyi Yanjiu). In the article, Nanjing University literature professor Wang Binbin charges that Wang Hui’s dissertation on Lu Xun, 《反抗绝望》(fangkan juewang), published in 1985 when he was a doctoral student at Nanjing University and later the basis of a book published in the early 1990s, contains several passages lifted from other works and used without citation.
Peking University professor Qian Liqun, one of the foremost authorities on Lu Xun, defended Wang Hui. While he admitted that there may be passages that don’t conform to academic standards, Professor Qian said that it’s not so easy to simply label it as ‘plagiarism,’ adding that the central argument and analysis were Wang Hui’s alone, and that nobody can deny the important contributions Wang Hui has made to the study of Lu Xun.
Now, I haven’t read Wang Hui’s book on Lu Xun, nor have I read through the entire article by Wang Binbin. My goal here is not to make claims as to the validity of the charges or to try and defend Wang Hui, except to say that he, like all academics, deserves every opportunity to try and refute these charges.* As Stephen Ambrose found out, fame doesn’t make one immune from charges of academic dishonesty. Indeed, high profile academics can make very juicy targets.
But in Wang Hui’s case I wonder if there might be something else going on as well. In addition to being a noted literary scholar, Wang Hui has also been a very high profile public intellectual who has criticized the Party for, among other things, abandoning its commitment to social justice and equality. Many of his works have been translated into English and published abroad, the most recent being a collection of essays entitled, The End of Revolution and the Limits of Modernity.
Responding to such criticism can place the Party in an awkward ideological position. The CCP leadership and their goons are generally well prepared to take on challenges from their right flank — whether in the form of uppity search engines or hunger-striking student protesters. But charges from the left — that the “Chinese characteristics” of socialism in the PRC today are not socialist enough — are both hard to ignore and difficult to counter. In recent years, the CCP has abolished agricultural taxes in rural areas (as well as most social services, but that’s a topic for another post…) and has at least paid lip service to the idea of balancing rural development with the economic growth in China’s urban areas. Nevertheless, economic inequalities continue to grow and class divisions in society remain a potentially unstable fault line in China’s harmonious facade.
Say what you want about the political impotence of public intellectuals, especially in an authoritarian state, but nobody likes a nag, and considering that plagiarism is an endemic problem in Chinese academia, I can’t shake the fear that Wang Hui is being singled out or targeted for raisons politique.
It’s a situation that bears watching over the next few weeks. Let’s see what happens.
*Those interested can see Joel Martinson’s very erudite and thorough critique of the critique below in the comments.
A reader sent me a link to Wang Binbin’s article and a lively comments section which I commend to everybody’s attention. Topics range from Wang Binbin’s allegations, Wang Hui’s academic reputation and not a few generally lamenting the sorry state of Chinese academia. Check it out.
【参考文献格式】顾颉刚撰；王煦华导读. 秦汉的方士与儒生 附《中国辨伪史略》. 上海古籍出版社, 1998.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1415
 § 1415
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.