Jinan Student Stabbed Hundreds of Times by Classmate, Officials Say Not Bullying, Sparking Controversy

On September 18, 2024, a sixth-grade girl at the Zhangqiu Bilingual School in Zhangqiu District, Jinan City, accused her male desk mate of using tools such as a compass and a chisel to poke her, with her left thigh once being poked with an iron chisel 218 times. Authorities stated that the incident did not meet the standards of campus bullying, receiving strong criticism.

**Translation:**

The incident came to light on September 8 when multiple videos circulated online showing a girl from the Zhangqiu Bilingual School accusing a male student who transferred to the school of bullying her while she was in the sixth grade. The boy repeatedly used iron chisels, compasses, and other objects to poke her, as well as using knives and hammers to assault her, some of which reportedly occurred during class.

The girl mentioned that her left thigh was poked with an iron chisel 218 times during a class, with the chisel deeply penetrating into her thigh for up to “40 minutes” without being removed. The injuries caused muscle damage, and the muscles on her legs still frequently ache.

According to reports from mainland self-media, the videos were posted online by the girl’s mother. The parents accused that when the girl had extensive bleeding on her arms and legs, the homeroom teacher simply sent her to the medical room for treatment. Other classmates informed the teacher of the harm inflicted on the girl by her new desk mate, but the homeroom teacher instead criticized the girl for “provoking others.”

After the incident, the homeroom teacher did not notify the girl’s parents first but immediately called the boy’s parents to inquire about “how to handle the situation.” The girl claimed that when the male desk mate first transferred to the school, he mentioned that his father knew the principal, and in his previous school, he had caused a classmate to have a shattered bone and resolved it by paying money.

According to the Xiaoxiang Morning News, staff from the Education and Sports Bureau in Zhangqiu District stated that the events mentioned in the videos occurred six months prior. In June, the Education and Sports Bureau in Zhangqiu District and the Shengjing Police Station were involved in the investigation. At the time of the incident, both the male student and the female student involved were sixth-grade students at the Zhangqiu Bilingual School and were desk mates.

The Shengjing Police Station recorded statements from the male student, the female student, and their respective parents, concluding that the incident did not meet the criteria for filing a case. Following an investigation by the Education and Sports Bureau in Zhangqiu District, it was determined that the incident did not meet the standards for campus bullying.

Currently, the female student and male student are both in the seventh grade at the Zhangqiu Bilingual School but are not in the same class. The girl’s parents have issued two demands to the school: refund two years of tuition fees and expel the boy involved, but they have not yet reached an agreement with the school. After the release of the online video by the parents, a team led by the Deputy District Chief in charge of education went to the school to conduct an investigation.

Following public attention to the incident, on September 11, the Propaganda Department of Zhangqiu District Committee in Jinan City, Shandong Province, responded to journalists regarding the incident of the “Zhangqiu Bilingual School female student being poked hundreds of times with a chisel by a male desk mate,” stating that a local investigation team had been established, and relevant issues were under investigation.

On September 11, the girl’s mother spoke out again, stating that a school vote determined that it was not a case of campus bullying, with 14 people participating in the vote, and 8 people not considering the male student’s actions as bullying.

Netizens expressed their disbelief, commenting that “Who defines the standard for bullying? Deciding bullying through voting is ridiculous, treating the law as a joke.” Some questioned the approach, stating, “Can such a matter be resolved through voting? The principal of the school should be investigated. And those 8 voters, if it were their children, how would they vote?”

Others highlighted the issue by stating, “This is extremely absurd! What constitutes bullying is determined by a vote by school personnel, and the public security authorities did not file a case based on this!” and raising questions about the standards employed in such cases.

“Could the Education and Sports Bureau in Zhangqiu District please clarify what the standards for bullying on campus are? If 218 pokes do not meet the criteria for bullying, then how many pokes are needed? The Education and Sports Bureau in Zhangqiu District and the Zhangqiu Bilingual School must provide a clear response.”

“Is there a standard for campus bullying? Simply put, if one student unjustly bullies another student, it should be considered bullying. This phenomenon of repeated poking, with over 200 pokes, does not constitute bullying, then what does?”

“Having over 200 pokes without being able to file a case, how many pokes are needed for that to happen?” Others made comparisons, asking, “If a police officer were to be poked 218 times, would that be considered an attack on an officer, and could a case be filed?”

Speculation arose, with remarks regarding who the victims were, “If the pokes were directed at the child of the head of the Education Bureau or the principal, would a case have been filed? If the pokes were reciprocated, would a case be filed? The girl in Shandong was poked. If she were an official’s or wealthy person’s child, the perpetrator would have been arrested long ago. It’s because she’s a child of poor parents that the public security authorities did not file a case.”

Questions were also raised about the impartiality of the investigation group established locally, with one netizen questioning, “Who can believe in the impartiality of this investigation team?”