Summary of Key Points
This article exposes the illegal and violent nature of “internet addiction rehabilitation schools” and “youth correction institutions” through several shocking real-life cases. These organizations use the guise of “education” to detain, physically punish, and abuse minors and even adults. The reason these institutions continue to operate despite repeated bans is that some parents treat their children as “private property.” They are willing to pay for “treatment” despite being aware of the violence, coupled with the high profits driven by these institutions and loopholes in legal supervision, which together have created this aberrant industry.
Detailed Analysis
1. Shocking Cases: From College Students to 32-Year-Old Adults—Anyone Can Be “Kidnapped”
The stories in the article are even more bizarre than those in TV dramas: A 21-year-old college student named Suling was kidnapped by her own father and her auntie from Beijing and taken to a “rehabilitation institution” in Henan simply because her parents disapproved of her boyfriend. A 32-year-old woman from Chongqing was forcibly taken away by her father in the early morning for “not obeying online rules” and was detained for over four months, resulting in severe physical and mental harm. A 13-year-old boy from Jiangxi named Zhang Hao was beaten so badly while at a “growth center” that he ended up in the ICU, losing his right eye and requiring surgery.
These cases challenge the notion that “internet addiction rehabilitation schools only target minors.” Even adults who can earn their own money can be forcibly taken away and illegally detained if their parents consider them “disobedient.” What’s more frightening is that violence is the norm in these institutions: Bathing requires special permission (some children go months without a bath), girls are subjected to pregnancy tests, and students are publicly beaten with rulers; instructors even kick people. After Suling reported the abuse, the police refused to file a case on the grounds that there were no criminal facts, and the abusers (parents, relatives, fake police officers) tried to evade responsibility by claiming it was a “family matter.”
2. Parents’ Self-Deception: What They Want Is Obedience, Not Education
Many people ask: Do parents really not know about the violence when they spend tens of thousands of yuan sending their children there? The article clearly reveals that they do! Just as they would compare prices when buying eggs, parents would certainly investigate the background of the institutions before spending tens of thousands of yuan to let their children stay for a year. However, what they want is not education (the institutions hardly provide any cultural knowledge); they simply want their children to be obedient. Since they can’t discipline teenagers on their own, they hire “professionals” (often former military personnel or people skilled in physical punishment) to do the job. This mindset is similar to that of someone who avoids cooking: they want the food but don’t want to see the killing process, so they hire a butcher to do it for them, pretending to be “clean.”
When Yuzhang Academy was shut down, some parents even held banners in support, saying that “children should endure hardship.” They believe that violence can make children “repent,” yet they ignore the psychological and physical trauma it causes.
3. A Profit-Driven “Violent Underground Industry”
How do these institutions make money? It’s a highly profitable business:
- High Fees: Tuition ranges from 30,000 to 100,000 yuan per semester, which is more expensive than many Sino-foreign cooperative education programs.
- Low Costs: Children are fed the worst food and live in poor conditions, and instructors are paid lowly, resulting in almost no teaching costs.
- Extra Income: Some institutions make extra money by having children do manual labor (under the guise of “strengthening character”).
According to Karl Marx, when profits are high enough, people will disregard the law. These institutions generate profits in excess of 100%, which encourages others to take the risk of operating them.
4. Regulatory Challenges: Why Can Illegal Institutions Survive?
Despite being involved in illegal detention and violence, these institutions have survived for over a decade:
- Difficult Law Enforcement: In cases like Suling’s, the police refuse to file cases on the grounds that it’s a “family matter,” allowing abusers to escape punishment.
- Parental Support: Some parents act as a shield for these institutions; when Yuzhang Academy was closed, some parents protested, believing the institution had helped them discipline their children effectively.
- Lagging Regulation: Institutions can simply change their name (from “internet addiction rehabilitation” to “growth centers” or “correction centers”) and continue operating without significant regulatory intervention.
5. The Root Cause: The Misconception That Children Are Private Property
At the heart of all these problems is the mistaken belief of some parents that children belong to them, and they can do whatever they want with them, even if it involves illegal detention and violence. As long as this mindset persists, the demand for such institutions will not disappear. As long as there are parents willing to pay to make their children obedient, these institutions will continue to exist. The article emphasizes that parents have no right to beat their children, nor can they authorize others to do so; they are the real culprits in harming their children and cannot escape punishment just because they are parents.
This article is not just about a few individual cases; it raises a fundamental question: When will we truly treat children as independent individuals, rather than mere “private property” that can be disposed of at will? Only by changing this mindset and implementing strict legal regulations can these violent institutions be eliminated for good.