> His girlfriend was shocked when she saw some of the tweets. Talking with him on the telephone, she begged him to stop. Not because she necessarily disagreed w

> His girlfriend was shocked when she saw some of the tweets. Talking with him on the telephone, she begged him to stop. Not because she necessarily disagreed with anything. But because she was worried about retaliation by the Chinese government. «I'm in Switzerland, not China,» Gerber replied. «I can say what I want here.» Shouldn't he have also taken into consideration that this "retaliation" could also be directed towards his girlfriend? Generally, the article raises the feeling of "mistakes have been made". There you have a professor afraid of harming her career, which is understandable, and having the option to play a "is de-registered anyway"-card. Keeping him in the unofficial advisorship and tied to the university can be seen as a friendly, helpful gesture on the part of the university, surely also with the intention to be able to refer to him should he build a successful career. It was a weak point which he should have taken into consideration, yet it would have been difficult to anticipate that it would turn out this way. Wasn't he planning to go back to Wuhan anyway? Why risk it?