A former marketing professor at Tsinghua University’s School of Economics and Management was reportedly removed from a classroom by police after one of his own students alerted authorities during a lecture in which he described China’s economic outlook as bleak. Officers arrived within minutes and escorted him out for questioning. Video of the incident has since circulated widely on Chinese social media.
Zheng Yuhuang, a former associate professor and doctoral advisor in Tsinghua’s marketing department who taught at the university for sixteen years before leaving academia to work as an independent commentator on business and economics, made the remarks on June 28, 2026. He told students that while China’s macroeconomic outlook was pessimistic, individual entrepreneurs and businesses still had room for optimism, and predicted the divergence would likely continue for the next two or three decades. Before he had finished explaining his point, a student in the classroom reportedly alerted police.
The incident first drew public attention on June 30, when Chinese news portal Sina.com published an article questioning how someone could report their own teacher over an academic discussion. Student-recorded videos later spread across Chinese social media and on X, showing Zheng delivering an unusually candid critique of inequality, nationalism, and China’s economic policies.
Zheng criticized China’s system of privilege
According to the videos, Zheng told students that society should treat all people equally. He contrasted the comfortable lives of retired officials — who, he said, often receive monthly pensions of between 10,000 and 20,000 yuan (approximately $1,400 to $2,800) — with the hardships faced by many ordinary Chinese citizens.
Reflecting on his own career, Zheng said he had gradually shifted from being purely an academic to becoming a public intellectual because he felt compelled to speak on behalf of those whose voices were rarely heard.
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
He also criticized what he described as entrenched vested interests. As examples, he cited Beijing residents who oppose expanding access to the city’s coveted household registration system, or hukou, because they wish to preserve exclusive access to better schools, healthcare, and other public services. He likewise criticized those who already own cars in Beijing but oppose relaxing vehicle ownership restrictions for others, calling such attitudes deeply self-interested.
Zheng also observed that most of China’s population has never traveled abroad or obtained a passport. In his view, a society with such limited international exposure should be cautious about claiming to possess a broad global perspective.
He further challenged what he described as China’s artificial social divisions, including the distinction between those employed inside the state-sector bureaucracy (tizhinei) and those working outside it (tizhiwai). Every Chinese citizen, he argued, should receive equal treatment under the law and in public policy. He questioned a system in which one group occupies the top of the social hierarchy while others struggle to survive on incomes of barely 100 yuan per month — about fourteen U.S. dollars.
Zheng warned that nationalism hurts competition
Zheng said he strongly opposed turning ordinary commercial competition into questions of national pride.
He pointed to the fact that the founder of a bottled water company had become China’s richest man, arguing that this reflected deeper structural problems rather than national success. Zheng argued that China’s tap water generally remained unsuitable for direct drinking, unlike in many developed countries where consumers can safely drink water straight from the faucet. In his view, a country whose wealthiest entrepreneur made his fortune selling bottled water rather than advanced technology should reflect on what that says about its stage of development.
Zheng also argued that without foreign competition, domestic companies would have fewer incentives to improve product quality. If foreign-invested firms were driven out of China, he suggested, some domestic businesses would face less pressure to maintain high standards, ultimately hurting consumers. The real value of foreign companies, he argued, is that they demonstrate what well-made products and responsible business practices look like.
He questioned why some Chinese nationalists advocate removing foreign companies altogether, arguing that industries exposed to international competition consistently produce better outcomes than sectors shielded by state protection or restricted competition.
As one example, Zheng cited Tesla, the first wholly foreign-owned automaker permitted to manufacture vehicles independently in China. According to Zheng, Tesla provides comprehensive international commercial health insurance for both employees and their families. He contrasted this with Chinese employers, arguing that few domestic companies — including Tsinghua University during his own years on the faculty — offered comparable benefits. He also maintained that multinational companies generally provide more generous severance packages than many Chinese firms.
Rather than resisting foreign investment, Zheng argued, Chinese companies should learn from international business practices. Unless China abandons what he described as a nationalist reflex that views foreign investment primarily as a threat, he warned, it would struggle to become a truly advanced economy.
China’s slowdown is a domestic problem, Zheng argued
In another widely circulated clip, Zheng acknowledged that China’s economic slowdown is real but insisted that the country’s difficulties stem primarily from domestic factors rather than weakness in the global economy.
He pointed to economic growth in countries such as Vietnam and India and claimed that even nations including Argentina and Venezuela were experiencing stronger economic momentum than China. He also noted that Cuba had recently announced what he described as its most significant market-oriented reforms in decades, adding that he did not dare elaborate further.
Turning to the United States, Zheng cited the 2026 FIFA World Cup, claiming that premium match tickets costing tens of thousands of dollars sold out almost immediately and that stadiums remained consistently full. He also referred to a stadium project in the United States that reportedly cost approximately $5.5 billion, arguing that such spending was viewed as an investment rather than waste.
By contrast, Zheng criticized China’s long-standing emphasis on large-scale infrastructure construction. He argued that major sporting events in China often lead to the construction of numerous stadiums that receive little use afterward, leaving taxpayers to absorb the long-term financial burden.
Online reaction focused on free speech
The videos generated widespread discussion on X, where many Chinese-language users viewed the incident as further evidence of shrinking space for open discussion inside China. Comments included: “It’s getting harder and harder to tell the truth in China.” “In this country, telling the truth is the greatest crime.” “Professor Zheng is one of the few people left who will still come out and speak honestly. If a good teacher like this gets pushed out too, it will be a disgrace to the Chinese nation.” “What good can you expect from a country where people are afraid just to open their mouths?” Another comment described the economic crisis as a mirror, reflecting other countries’ successes alongside the Party’s own failures.
Many users also criticized the student who reported Zheng, arguing that universities should remain places where ideas can be debated freely rather than monitored for politically sensitive opinions. Several framed the case as part of a broader pattern in which Chinese economists and academics have faced growing scrutiny in recent years for expressing pessimistic views about the economy.
By Li Muzi
