Talk:Trial of Anming Hu

FBI testimony section

I read through the article, but in that section, it read a bit repetitive and seemed a little convoluted. Govvy (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

NASA China Restriction section (new)

The indictment against Anming Hu cites Public Law and quotes from a NASA "Circular" GIC 12-01A. These documents can be found online. The Public Law does not mention "Chinese universities", but the Circular claims that these universities are incorporated under Chinese law as Chinese owned companies.

The charges against Anming Hu were based on the sentence in GIC 12-01A, as though it represented NASA policy. Documents can be found online that describe now NASA establishes its policy, and that describe the function of a NASA Circular, and that describe how the contents of a NASA Circular can become NASA policy after being published in the Federal Register to solicit public comment.

It is proposed that this source information be assembled into a section describing the NASA China Restriction, which the author of GIC 12-01A proposed to enlarge as a restriction on Chinese universities. Policycheck (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggest the new section on the NASA China restriction could be added to the Wolf Amendment article. It seems odd that there were no links between this article and the law at the core of this prosecution, I just added one. Going forward, it might be reasonable to have in this article a very brief description of the charge and why it was bogus, with more links into the Wolf Amendment article. -- M.boli (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Outdated information

Currently the article contains outdated information that was clearly added before the more recent events. Speculation on whether UT would re-hire Hu is not relevant any more and speculation that they "want to get rid of him" does not belong in an encyclopedic article and is clearly not WP:NPOV. It seems @Qiushufang: is opposed to these edits and I would like to discuss what reasons they can bring forward to leave this information in the article. In my opinion, the situation with UT should explain the firing and re-hiring and should also contain info whether Hu accepted the offer (currently the article only says an offer was made). --hroest 22:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source which states that the information is outdated? The information is presented in the article as the statement of one person, not a fact, nor is it cancelled by any development since. In fact it might have been a contributing factor in the decision by UTK to rehire Hu. However I have not been able to find information on any of the above nor have I been able to find information on whether or not Hu was rehired. Qiushufang (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"Railroad him out" quote, plus visa catch-22

So it seems to us that they're trying to railroad him out so they won't have to deal with him anymore. -- McAlpin. We have been adding and deleting this quote in different forms. I should have participated in the above talk page discussion several rounds of revert ago.

To my mind, arguments against including this quote are:

• to the best of our knowledge McAlpin was an uninvolved third party
• she used weasel words, viz: seems to us, they are trying
• she commented on motivations not actions, viz: they are trying, so they won't have to deal with him
• there was no factual reporting to back it up

The factual part of McAlpin's statement, that UT was a necessary part of the visa process, was useful for understanding why the provost's statement was pragmatically bad. I think this is uncontested. And subsequent reporting showed that immigration status was indeed a big stumbling block.

But as to the provost's motivation at that moment, it doesn't matter anyway. We now know that Hu and his lawyer were negotiating with UT. The university did what was necessary to work with Hu to correct his immigration status.

Much of this story shows institutions being unfair to Hu. In that vein, I think it might be useful to describe in this article the catch-22 work visa contradiction:

• charged with a crime meant that Hu couldn't leave the country
• but being charged (thus losing his permanent residency application) meant he needed leave the country to renew his work visa

Also after Hu was cleared, it seems to have required the intervention of three Congressional Reps to get his status back with the necessary dispatch. All which is pretty damning, in a fair world you wouldn't lose your status (and therefore your job) over a crime the justice system says you didn't commit.

Those are my thoughts. Above, @Qiushufang -- who has done great work creating and curating this article -- presented some reasons for including the quote. At that time, in late December, we already knew (and had posted to this article) that Hu and UT had come to agreement about getting his job back. Which, perforce, included working together to solve the immigration status problem. However Q thinks McAlpin's statement might have been instrumental in the negotiations, so there may be reasons for including it. To me the balance is against.

And I apologize again for letting this issue go way past 3RR during the past few months without taking it here. -- M.boli (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes that was my reason for trying to include that remark, that it may have played some effect in the decision making at UTK. To me it seems fairly clear that there was a concerted effort by many parties that led to the current situation, including pressure from third parties such as politicians and other organizations. If others feel strongly that it shouldn't be included then that's fine and I'll leave it to the judgement of other editors. Qiushufang (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah! Since the university was responding to pressure from third parties when it acted against Hu, then it could have been responding to public embarrassment when it started to negotiate with Hu. It seems eminently plausible. -- M.boli (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)