On this day, 37 years ago, January 13, 1988 (November 24, 1987 in the lunar calendar), there was a disturbance in Shekou. Photo of the Symposium between Young Educators and Experts and Shekou Youth On January 13, 1988, a "Symposium between Young Education Experts and Shekou Youth" held in an ordinary conference room on the 9th floor of the China Merchants Building in Shekou was such an event. Neither party to the discussion, including the organizers of the symposium, expected in advance that this symposium, which did not even have much "formal" meaning, would cause such a huge response afterwards. Through media dissemination, it set off a nationwide discussion on youth ideological work, and the essence of the discussion even touched on the level of ideological reform. Overseas media reported and commented one after another, commenting on the right and wrong of this symposium, and regarded it as a certain signal of China's pace of opening up and reform in the ideological field. This symposium was later called the "Shekou Incident" by the media. There were many confrontations at the symposium. One symposium influenced the whole country. On the evening of January 13, 1988, the "Symposium on Youth Education Experts and Shekou Youth" was held at the China Merchants Building in Shekou. The three experts attending the meeting, including Li Yanjie, Qu Xiao and Peng Qingyi, were all rapporteurs of the China Youth Ideological Education Research Center. At the meeting, Shekou youth held a fierce debate with experts on issues such as life values. An expert mentioned in his speech that the purpose of some people coming to Shenzhen is to make a profit from the wealth created by others. These are the very small number of gold diggers, and the SAR does not welcome such gold diggers. The young people in Shekou believe that "gold divers" make money without breaking the law and have no fault. The direct motivation of "gold divers" to come to Shekou is to make money, but objectively they also contribute to the construction of Shekou. There is nothing wrong with "gold divers". Some experts believe that "many self-employed households donate a large part of their income to the country and carry out public welfare undertakings." This spirit and practice should be vigorously promoted. On the other hand, young people in Shekou believed that the transformation lingering in the shadow of "leftist" should not be praised. At that time, some self-employed households did not act voluntarily, but expressed their lingering fear of "leftist" thoughts. While self-employed households make money, they have already made contributions to the country. Only by self-employed households can they confidently put their labor income into their pockets can more people believe in the continuity and stability of the party's policies. A young man from Shekou also pointedly pointed out at the meeting: "The ideas of the three teachers have no market in Shekou." This young man believes that the expression of love for the motherland should be based on truth from facts and should not be false, false, or empty. "We use our labor to express our love for the motherland. We worked ourselves and enjoyed the fruits of our labor ourselves." Then, the two sides argued over how to view young people's sense of autonomy. When Peng Qingyi introduced his daughter, he said: "My child went to college after graduation. I haven't looked for a way. She failed to get in, what is she doing now? Working as a waiter at XX Guest House... "A young man said: This restricted her daughter's right to choose a career by her father. Young people should be allowed to exercise the initiative and make choices according to their wishes, including choosing their own careers. At the end of the symposium, there was another debate around the issues of imported cars and system reform. Qu Xiao mentioned in his speech that he looked uncomfortable with so many foreign cars running on our land. Some young people believe that under the current theme of opening up and the situation where the global economy and trade are gradually becoming integrated, it is a sign of backwardness to have no foreign things. Overseas media reported and commented on them one after another. On January 14, 1988, the day after the symposium, the Youth Education Research Institute of Beijing Normal University, which was chaired by Li Yanjie, produced a material, which gave people the impression that the symposium was full of "obvious erroneous remarks" and that Shekou youth had gone "evil path." On February 1, the Shekou News reported on the symposium under the title "Shekou: A Fierce Conflict between Stereotypes and Modern Consciousness", and then issued several articles in succession criticizing the three reporters for their ideological rigidity. On February 12, the "Yangcheng Evening News" reported on the matter, and the impact of the "Shekou Incident" began to spread from south to north. On August 6, 1988, the People's Daily published a 7000-word article "Questions and Answers on the" Shekou Storm "" and opened a column to discuss this issue. From August 8 to the end of this column on September 14, 1531 letters poured into the People's Daily from all over the country and even around the world, of which only 17.4% preferred or agreed with the views of the three experts. From mid-August to mid-November, hundreds of newspapers and periodicals across the country published articles on this issue, and the vast majority of them pointed out that ideological and political work must be improved. After 31 years of historical review, people are still willing to chew on the change and development it exudes in their memories of this incident. Zou Qiming believes that the incident contains two meanings. Judging from the incident itself, the information it revealed was like a breath of fresh air. The three teachers were authorities in the ideological education of young people at that time. They made a nationwide tour of reports, and the listeners were completely educated. But in Shekou, they were challenged by young people. The young people in Shekou dared to put forward opinions, collide with the three authorities, and even debate. This seemed very bold at the time and even now. Because young people in Shekou did not work in state-owned enterprises or units within the system like young people in the mainland at that time, they raised doubts and were not afraid of being labeled as "backward youth", being regarded as objects of help, education, and criticism, and not afraid of losing their jobs because of it. There are deep institutional reasons for their actions. Now that I think about it, those young people who stood up to contradict the experts continued a certain "May 4th" tradition in ideological pedigree, revalued their values, and dared to challenge stereotypes and precepts. On a deeper level, the debate between the Shekou youth and the three ideological educators shows that the two sides have great differences in their understanding of life, their views on things, and even their outlook on life and values. It shows that the previous teachings were at the time It seemed inappropriate and even conflicted with the social reality at that time. This contradiction was actually common in society at that time, but the "Shekou Incident" intensified this contradiction. It has triggered new thinking: Under the new situation, what should the ideological education of young people be done to be more effective, and how can a new generation of young people listen? What kind of outlook on life and values are correct? To a certain extent, the young people who came from that era really needed some kind of opportunity to break through the dilapidated ideological barriers and open up new value fulcrums for future life. In fact, they were all in this context. The catalyst for ideological breakthroughs.