When the media reported that Nanjing Forestry University had advised its students not to "overtly or excessively" express love on the campus and Wuhan Polytechnic University threatened to disqualify "student cadres" who hugged or kissed their lovers in public, I knew that commentators were bound to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Sure enough, one after another jumped into the fray - through newspapers, and blogs and other Internet channels - to denounce the universities from every possible angle, humanity and human rights to education philosophy and management ability.

After reading the commentaries, written in indignant, cynical or sarcastic tones, a question occurred to me: "Do the two schools really deserve such a criticism campaign?"

"College students have the freedom to love anyone and it is normal for them to express their affection overtly." This is the reason most of the commentators have given to support their arguments.

I think the arguments tantamount to forcing a fault on the accused. The Nanjing and Wuhan universities have not objected to love or banned intimate behavior. What the Nanjing university said was: "Caution, those who indulge in gongkai (overt) acts of guofen (excessive) intimacy on the campus." Any sensible Chinese knows what gongkai and guofen mean.

Boys and girls walking hand in hand or hugging and kissing are common scenes on campuses today - proof of how tolerant the authorities are with such behavior. But an intimate act with sexual implications in a public place is guofen behavior, which is exactly what the Nanjing university wants to stop.

The Wuhan university's regulation says: "A student cadre who hugs his/her lover openly will be disqualified." The meaning is clear: It's okay to hug your lover in public, but for that you have to quit your job as a cadre first." (A "student cadre" in China is one who helps teachers to maintain order in class and organizes students for activities for public good.)

What is wrong if a school asks its student cadres to behave better than their peers in order to maintain a good academic atmosphere? What has disqualifying a student cadre got to do with infringement on students' right to freedom of love?

Campus is a public place. Although lovers are free to kiss and hug, their action should not be a source of embarrassment for others.

Some students are really misusing this "freedom to love" as is evident from the many photos posted online. They disturb our senses on a campus especially because the main function of a university is to impart knowledge and conduct academic research. The lovers, of course, are free to choose a private place.

Reading some commentators, I wondered whether they were really concerned with students' freedom to love. I suspect they are trying to gratify the bully in them - it is in a vogue now to berate universities - or to show off their writing skills.

For instance, a well-known Beijing-based newspaper carried an article by a "veteran commentator" over the weekend, titled University Is Not Castle of Chastity. It drew a parallel between the universities' moves and the feudal-days' demand for women's chastity. The commentator alleged that the schools were suppressing students' "normal sexual psychology and need for love", and declared that they "have the right to govern their own bodies", before concluding: "Please pardon the lovers!"

This is forcing a crime on the accused by exaggerating facts. The two universities did nothing more than asking students to refrain from excessive intimate behavior in public places. Where is the question of new regulations trying to kill students' sexual freedom in the schools?

The commentator also accused the school authorities of being "voyeurs who feel tormented by other people's pleasure". I can't help asking him: "Do you really believe that your words can convince readers that the school authorities are people with such a dirty mind?"

And I want to tell him: "Please pardon the school authorities."

E-mail: liushinan@chinadaily.com.cn

(China Daily 11/25/2009 page9)