China's Debate Over English's Status as a Core Subject: Math Professor Challenges "Worship of the West" Tradition, Hu Xijin Rebuts with Educational Equity

Chinese math professor Tang Jiafeng recently called for removing English from the list of core scored subjects in primary schools, secondary schools and universities, directly arguing that the system perpetuates a tradition of "worship of the West" and causes a massive misallocation of educational resources. According to Deutsche Welle, Tang Jiafeng's remarks spread rapidly on social media, and the debate over the status of English has since intensified.

Tang Jiafeng's challenge is anchored in a set of hard numbers: English has been a compulsory subject from the third grade of primary school, and is weighted equally with Chinese and mathematics in the high school entrance exam, junior high school completion exam, and college entrance examination, with the college entrance examination English paper carrying a full score of 150; all undergraduates are also required to pass an English examination before pursuing a master's degree. He wrote on social media: "Our children haven't even mastered their mother tongue before they are forced to start learning English. Yet we are a civilization that has continued for thousands of years. English is merely a tool; being able to use it is enough. The tradition of worshipping the West must end." He also asked: "How many resources and hours have our children, parents and schools invested in a subject that is completely irrelevant to most people's future careers?"

Supporters of adjustment have already begun proposing specific compromises. A netizen from Guangdong suggested lowering the English score in the college entrance examination from 150 to 120. A Beijing netizen countered: "AI can translate in seconds — why do we still have to rote-memorize English?"

But opponents are equally clear-cut. Former Global Times editor-in-chief Hu Xijin argued for retaining English as a compulsory subject, with his core rationale being educational equity. Hu Xijin stressed that foreign language ability is essential for every global citizen, and that making English a core subject precisely gives rural children the opportunity to access this language leading to the outside world; once it is removed, the gap between urban and rural students in information access will be further entrenched. He also warned that setting "foreign language learning" against "traditional culture" would only "create opposition between the wrong priorities, needlessly politicizing public discussion."

At the institutional level, universities have been quietly adjusting. According to Deutsche Welle, Beijing Foreign Studies University has adopted a "foreign language + major" model, combining English with law, information technology, or economics. A professor at a Beijing university told Deutsche Welle that the number of high school graduates choosing elective courses in less commonly taught languages such as German is declining, and foreign language universities must respond in their training objectives.

Tang Jiafeng also cited the late-Qing Self-Strengthening Movement figure Wei Yuan's formulation of "learning from the barbarians' superior techniques in order to control them" as a historical precedent for how China has discussed learning foreign knowledge and skills. In his logic, today's compulsory English system continues an unreflective "learning from the West" inertia.

However, this debate has not yet translated into clear policy moves. Deutsche Welle noted that there is no public indication that China's Ministry of Education is seriously considering any specific adjustment to the compulsory status of English; the overall level of support for Tang Jiafeng's proposal among the public and academia is also difficult to gauge from the localized reactions on social media.

The deeper tension lies in this: the reason English has become the global lingua franca itself embodies the dominance of the West in science, technology, academia, and media since the modern era. Does a country with several thousand years of civilization still need to back this structural inequality with the effort of a whole nation? As machine translation matures, and as China begins to be studied in reverse by other countries in fields like battery technology and humanoid robots, the questions raised by Tang Jiafeng and the rebuttals by Hu Xijin are no longer just an internal debate over education policy, but about how a rising civilization relates to the existing global knowledge order.