不管是为了北大的脸面之争，还是维系学术的最后尊严，又或是挽救高校的信任危机，北大纪检部门理当介入。

Whether to north face rivalry，Or sustain academic last dignity，Or save the trust crisis，Peking University discipline inspection departments involved in it。

　　8月21日，前北京大学经济学教授邹恒甫在实名微博上爆料，称北大院长、教授和系主任奸淫餐厅服务员，北大内酒店服务生走后门上北大学位班。当晚，北京大学回应称“绝无此事”，并表示学校将保留追究邹恒甫诋毁或诽谤的权利。

August 21，Former Beijing university professor of economics ZouHengFu rule in micro blog blog，Says the north、Professor and dean commit adultery restaurant waiter，The hotel waiter in Peking University on the back door of Peking University degree class。That night，Beijing responded that university“No matter”，And said that the school will retain shall be investigated for ZouHengFu libel or slander rights。

　　这样的一条微博，自然能引来极大关注。“北大院长在梦桃源北大医疗室吃饭时只要看到漂亮服务员就必然下手把她们奸淫，北大教授系主任也不例外。所以，梦桃源生意火爆”。“爆料”无论是真是假，伤害已是不可避免：倘若邹恒甫所说哪怕部分为真，对北大乃至高校来说，都是一种极大的耻辱，堂堂知名高等学府，竟然如此藏污纳垢，师道尊严何存？而假设真如北大回应所言，邹恒甫“极端不负责任，让人匪夷所思”，北大真的绝无此事，那么公众在庆幸之外，也必然会对一个知名学者如此不负责任的言论失望之极，北大也有足够的理由追究其诋毁诽谤之责。

Such a micro bo，Nature can draw great attention。“Peking University dean in the dream taoyuan north treatment room when having a meal as long as see beautiful waiter will inevitably be laid hands on him the they commit adultery，Peking University professor dean is no exception。so，Dream taoyuan business is hot”。“kept”Whether it is true，Damage is inevitable：If ZouHengFu said even if part is true，Peking University and college to it，Is a great shame，Open well-known universities，Unexpectedly so shelter evil people and practices，The teacher's dignity more like a business deal than a？And hypothesis true such as north response said，ZouHengFu“Extremely irresponsible，Unimaginably queer letting a person”，Peking University really no matter，So the public outside in glad，Also will to a well-known scholars so irresponsible remarks very disappointed，Peking University also have enough reason to pursue its denigrate slander responsibility。

　　其实细究邹恒甫的“爆料”，虽然也是一种“网友曝”，但以其本人的真实姓名，再加上其前北大教授的身份，却选择一种欠缺具体指向对象的实名爆料，其用意究竟何在，实难理解。这样的爆料本就有打击一大片之嫌，退一步说，即便真有个别的院长、系主任存在不轨行为，也不能得出“北大院长、教授、系主任奸淫服务员”的结论。难道他是故意不点明？又或者根本就是无中生有？但不管怎么说，以这种模糊其辞的爆料方式，直言北大院长、教授奸淫服务员，却又不拿出证据，不指名道姓，在网络声音已成公共传播主要渠道之一的当下，都不是一个严谨治学学者应有的做法。

In fact ZouHengFu canvass the“kept”，Although is also a kind of“Net friend exposure”，But with its my real name，Coupled with its former Peking University professor's identity，But choosing a specific point to lack of support object rule，Its purpose what on earth，Real difficult to understand。Such leaks this have hit a large too，Step back and said，Even if true have individual dean、The dean exist misdemeanour，Also cannot come to“Pku President、professor、The dean commit adultery attendant”conclusion。Is he is intentionally don't point out？Or simply out of thin air？But no matter how to say，In this way the fuzzy words leaks，The truth of Peking University、The professor commit adultery，Yet do not come up with the evidence，Don't name names，In the network sound has become one of the main public communication channel current，Is not a rigorous research scholars should practice。

　　而对众多网友来说，在真相不明之际，大肆转发评论，并且不少人选择了相信，这样的一种网络轻信本身也有失理性。比如说，邹恒甫在微博上说“除了邹恒甫，北大淫棍太多”，言下之意，北大除了他，其他大都是淫棍，这样的话可信吗？事实上，在前不久的安徽庐江官员“艳照门”事件中，尽管庐江官方一再辟谣，微博上艳照依然疯传，这其实对“自媒体时代”如何避免不必要的网络暴力传播，已经提出了反思。很显然，这种欠缺理性的传播又一次上演了。

But to many users speaking，In truth the unknown，Wantonly forward comments，And many people chose to believe，Such a network credulity itself also be rational。For example，ZouHengFu in micro bo said“In addition to ZouHengFu，North immoral man too much”，implication，Peking University in addition to his，Other mostly immoral man，So reliable？In fact，In the LuJiang officials recently in anhui province“Yan zhao door”event，Although LuJiang official moved again and again，Micro blog yanzhao still crazy preach，It to“Since the age of the media”How to avoid unnecessary network spread violence，Have put forward the reflection。obviously，This lack of rational communication again staged。

　　当然，你可以说，北大是公共机构，公众有质疑的权利；而且北大教授“王学明”在丽江和高中女生小丽艳遇后反遭情人敲诈30万元，至少表明北大教授中也有过“败类”，但一个个案不能代表北大所有老师，更不能以此来推断邹恒甫的“丑闻曝”就一定为真。而且邹恒甫作为知名学者、公共人物，他应该清楚自己的影响力，在欠缺证据之下，就断言“北大淫棍太多”，对北大的伤害又该如何担责？

Of course，You can say，Peking University is a public institution，The public has the right to question；And professor of Peking University“WangXueMing”In lijiang and high school girl xiao li affairs counter was lover blackmail 300000 yuan，At least show that in Peking University professor also had“A black sheep”，But a case can't represent all the teacher of Peking University，More can't use this to infer the ZouHengFu“Scandal exposure”Will is true。And ZouHengFu as famous scholars、Public figures，He should know their influence，Lack of evidence in under，Will assert“North immoral man too much”，Pku damage and how to bear the responsibility？

　　值得关注的是，在爆料北大院长奸淫服务员之后，邹恒甫继续发微博“抖”猛料，矛头直指北大个别教授和部门，言语更是肆无忌惮。面对如此“叫板”，北大停留于简单回应显然无法消除公众心中疑惑。

There is concern，Leaks in Peking University dean commit adultery after the waiter，ZouHengFu continue to FaWei bo“shake”Fierce material，Spearhead directed at Peking University professor individual and department，Speech is without scruple。In the face of such“Freed the”，North to stay in simple response obviously can't eliminate the public heart doubt。

　　不管是为了北大的脸面之争，还是维系学术的最后尊严，又或是挽救高校的信任危机，北大纪检部门理当介入，而无须保留追究邹恒甫诋毁或诽谤的权利。甚至公安机关也应介入调查，毕竟“奸淫服务员”的爆料若为真，那么“北大院长”已涉嫌违法犯罪。

Whether to north face rivalry，Or sustain academic last dignity，Or save the trust crisis，Peking University discipline inspection departments involved in it，Without reserve shall be investigated for ZouHengFu libel or slander rights。Even the public security organ should also get involved，After all“Commit adultery waiter”If support is true，so“Pku President”Already suspected of illegal crime。