In October 2024, a heated debate erupted at Nanchang University after students and faculty discovered that classrooms had been equipped with dual cameras featuring facial recognition and target tracking capabilities (Nandu N Video, 2024). The university administration claimed that this “smart classroom supervision system” was implemented to improve teaching quality and support national “Double First-Class” evaluation criteria. However, many students and teachers quickly raised concerns about the intrusiveness of the technology, arguing that it violated their privacy rights and threatened academic freedom.

The system could record students’ faces throughout each lecture, store data on central servers, and automatically flag behaviors such as sleeping, playing with mobile phones, or not paying attention. In essence, it transformed the classroom into a space of continuous surveillance and evaluation. Teachers worried about being disciplined if their students’ had low engagement metrics, while many students experienced psychological stress and a felt treated as subjects under inspection rather than autonomous learners.

Beyond the campus, this incident triggered public discussion across social media, with commentators questioning whether education should become a site of digital policing. Some parents supported the policy as a way to enhance discipline, while others criticized it as fostering fear and conformity rather than genuine learning. This incident highlights a broader ethical dilemma faced by educational leaders in the digital era: How do we balance institutional accountability with human dignity?

Universities increasingly turn to data analytics and AI-based systems to measure quality and efficiency, yet such approaches risk reducing education to quantifiable metrics while neglecting trust, care, and freedom. Surveillance technologies in education are part of a larger surveillance capitalism logic that commodifies behavioral data for institutional and corporate gain.

The Nanchang University case is significant for three reasons. First, it demonstrates how technological innovation in education can quickly collide with ethical principles of autonomy and consent. Second, it shows that administrative decisions motivated by external evaluation pressure can unintentionally erode the psychological safety of learning spaces. Third, it invites leaders to reflect on what kind of learning culture they are building: one based on trust and care, or one dominated by control and surveillance.

Globally, similar debates have emerged around the use of online proctoring software during the COVID-19 pandemic, where students reported feeling watched, judged, and violated during exams. In each context, leaders were confronted with the same ethical question: Does technological surveillance promote integrity and quality, or does it fundamentally undermine the trust and autonomy on which education depends? The Nanchang case offers us an opportunity to explore these questions through the lenses of justice, care, and critique; and to imagine alternative futures for ethical educational leadership in a digital world.

Leadership Decision Analysis

Here we analyze how the university leaders made decisions and which ethical principles guided (or failed to guide) this process. Although the incident itself has already attracted public attention, the more important question is how the educational leaders viewed this decision, on what assumptions they based their decisions upon, and what impact their choices had on the members of the university community.

From the leader’s perspective, installing surveillance cameras seemed to align with the university’s educational goals. They believed that this system could help collect classroom data, improve classroom behaviour and student engagement, and meet the expectations of higher education authorities. This idea followed a utilitarian logic, aiming to achieve the maximum happiness of the greatest number of people (Bentham, 1789/2009). In their view, the overall benefits to the university outweighed the students’ personal privacy. However, the belief that strengthening surveillance will automatically improve teaching quality reflects a technological bias and ignores the evidence from real educational practices.

This decision also reflects a mindset that is oriented towards obedience. The leadership claimed that they were merely following external requirements, which made the decision seem responsible on the surface. However, from an ethical perspective, this approach ignores the impact of the decision on teachers and students. According to Bouchon and Childress (2019), an ethical leader should respect people’s autonomy; people who have the right to be informed and make choices. In this case study, teachers and students were not consulted before the cameras were installed, and the notification was issued only after the decision was made. As Starratt (2004) argued, ethical leadership requires care and empathy, and both of these elements are absent in this case study. Excluding the affected parties from the discussion also raises issues of fairness, as the teachers and students did not have equal opportunities to participate in the decision-making process. These consequences further exposed the flaws in the leadership approach.

Students reported increased anxiety, while teachers felt their teaching was restricted and were worried that their words would be recorded and misunderstood. These reactions align with the concept of monitoring culture proposed by Lyon (2018), which posits that continuous monitoring can alter behavior and limit open communication. Additionally, this decision may carry legal risks, as China’s Personal Information Protection Law (2021) requires clear notification and consent before collecting personal data. From a broader perspective, the normalization of monitoring reflects Zuboff’s (2019) concern that data collection gradually shapes young people’s understanding of privacy and power.

In conclusion, although the leadership intended to improve the quality of education, they failed to fully consider the ethical implications of their actions. Their decisions prioritized institutional pressure and assessment results rather than people’s rights, emotions, and long-term trust. This case study demonstrates that educational leaders must balance performance goals with ethical values such as respect, fairness, and care.

Application of Multiple Ethical Lenses

The most appropriate ethical lenses to explain the ethical dilemma concerning the case study of Nanchang University are the ethics of justice, care and community.

Ethic of Justice

Ethic of justice is a theory used to critique decision-making policies related to distributive justice (Cook & Hegtvedt, 1983). Justice-focused leaders are concerned with fairness, equality, and transparency in decision-making (Hoare et al., 2024). Nanchang University violated this principle by installing surveillance cameras without first obtaining consent from the teachers and students. This is problematic because decisions that affect people’s rights should be open, fair, and include the voices of everyone involved (Rawls, 1951). However, the university leadership made the decision alone and did not allow teachers or students to take part in the process. Teachers and students were denied a fair process.

Although the ethic of justice stresses fairness and clear procedures (Tyler, 1988), it has limitations. It does not fully address the emotional or psychological harm that a decision may cause (Hailes et al., 2021). Even when a policy follows fair procedures, it may still negatively affect those involved. This limitation creates tension with the ethic of care, highlighting that procedural fairness alone cannot fully safeguard individuals’ emotional and relational well-being (Held, 2005).

Ethic of Care

The ethic of care is focused on how decisions influence on interpersonal relationships (Hoare et al., 2024). Care-focused leaders emphasizes emotional bonds, empathy, and concern for others’ well-being (Barnes, 2012). In the case study, the ethic of care helps us interrogate the impact of surveillance on the classroom environment. Cameras may create emotional distance between teachers and students, potentially inhibiting free expression and interaction (Palfrey, 2017). Teachers may fear excessive scrutiny, and students may hesitate to participate fully.

While the ethic of care emphasizes emotional well-being and relationships, Botes (2000) warned that this focus can sometimes conflict with the procedural fairness central to the ethic of justice, creating tensions in decision-making. Therefore, to protect both fairness and emotional health, university leaders should carefully consider the relational impact of policies, promoting trust and honesty in their decisions. This approach helps ensure that procedural rules do not inadvertently harm the emotional and interpersonal well-being of those affected.

Ethic of Community

The ethic of community focuses on mutual responsibility and connection within the community to promote collective well-being and social justice (Hoare et al., 2024). Nanchang University’s actions may negatively affect trust and cooperation within the academic community. The presence of surveillance could weaken trust between teachers and students and hinder their ability to collaborate and communicate openly (Little, 1990); importantly, in an academic environment, trust and the free exchange of ideas are essential.

Nanchang University neglected shared responsibility, overlooking the need to build trust and collaboration essential for a healthy academic community. The ethic of community complements both justice and care by emphasizing shared responsibility and collective well-being (Keeling, 2014). However, tensions may appear when institutional rules overlook emotional and relational concerns, demonstrating how community values can be harmed by top-down decisions.

Authors’ Positionality and Reflexivity

As a team of graduate students studying educational leadership across both Chinese and Canadian contexts, we recognize that our understanding of privacy, technology, and ethical decision-making is shaped by our diverse cultural and academic experiences. We received our primary and secondary education in China, where collective order, administrative hierarchy, and surveillance are often normalized as mechanisms of discipline and social stability. We also studied in Canada, where personal autonomy, informed consent, and participatory dialogue are emphasized within educational leadership frameworks. Our positionalities thus intersect across two educational paradigms: one grounded in collectivist governance and the other in democratic deliberation.

Initially, our perspectives on the Nanchang University case were divided. A few group members sympathized with the leader’s rationale, interpreting surveillance as a legitimate strategy to improve classroom engagement and discipline, which echoes the Confucian emphasis on harmony and order in learning environments (Li, 2012). However, other group members viewed the decision as a violation of trust and an overreach of authority, shaped by Western notions of student-centered pedagogy and human rights.

Through sustained dialogue, we began to see that both stances contained partial truths: accountability and autonomy are not mutually exclusive, yet achieving balance requires moral sensitivity and contextual awareness. As we analyzed the case through multiple ethical lenses, we became more aware of our own biases. Those of us who had grown up in heavily surveilled school environments tended to normalize control and associate visibility with safety. Conversely, those trained in participatory educational systems were more skeptical of institutional power and technological oversight (Biesta, 2015). Recognizing these differences allowed us to practice reflexivity, and increased our willingness to question our assumptions and understand how our identities influence interpretation (Furman, 2012).

This process also prompted deeper reflection on the emotional dimension of leadership. In collectivist settings, leaders are often expected to appear decisive and rational, prioritizing results over emotions. However, ethical leadership involves attentive listening and relational care. Learning from this, we began to appreciate that discomfort and disagreement are not signs of weakness but opportunities for moral growth. Working collaboratively across cultures required us to exercise empathy and humility. We confronted questions such as: Whose perspectives are we centering? How might privilege, nationality, or language shape our ethical reasoning? By engaging with these tensions, our team’s understanding of ethical leadership expanded from abstract theory to lived experience. We realized that positionality is not a limitation but a resource as it invites multiple ways of knowing and fosters richer ethical reflection.

In conclusion, this case challenged us to move beyond simplistic judgments of “right” or “wrong.” Instead, we learned that ethical decision-making in education requires awareness of power, culture, and self. To lead ethically is to remain critically self-aware and to question not only what decisions we make, but also who we become in the process of making them.

Alternative Solution and Comparative Analysis

The Nanchang University surveillance controversy illustrates a failure of ethical leadership rooted in technocratic overreach. To restore balance between educational accountability and individual dignity, we propose an alternative policy framework grounded in transparency, consent, and participatory governance. This model aligns with UNESCO’s guidelines for AI ethics in education and the ethical leadership principles articulated by Starratt (Starratt, 2005). The solution is informed by four overarching principles: 1) transparent communication and informed consent, 2) minimal and purpose-bound data use, 3) shared governance and privacy oversight, and 4) pedagogical alternatives to surveillance.

Transparent Communication and Informed Consent

Before any technological deployment, institutions must initiate open consultation with faculty and students, clearly communicating the purpose, scope, and duration of data collection. Cameras, if deemed necessary, should operate under strictly defined conditions and with visible signage. Consent should be voluntary, revocable, and documented. This procedure transforms surveillance from a secretive act of control into a transparent act of collaboration that respects individual autonomy.

Minimal and Purpose-Bound Data Use

In alignment with the data minimization principle (Lupton & Williamson, 2017), only aggregate attendance or participation statistics should be collected, excluding biometric or facial data. Raw video should be automatically deleted after a short retention period and never shared with third-party vendors. This reduces ethical risk and complies with the provisions of China’s Personal Information Protection Law (Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, 2021).

Shared Governance and Privacy Oversight

An independent “Classroom Privacy Committee” should be established with equal representation from students, faculty, and administrators. This body would review monitoring proposals, approve data requests, and manage grievances. Such shared decision-making embodies the ethic of community and builds relational trust (Bryk & Schneider, 2002).

Pedagogical Alternatives to Surveillance

Rather than relying on constant observation, leaders could promote peer-class observation, student feedback surveys, and reflective teaching portfolios. These methods enhance accountability through dialogue and professional growth rather than fear. By shifting from coercion to collaboration, leadership fosters an ethos of care and mutual responsibility.

Table 1:  Comparative Analysis

This alternative model is both technically and culturally feasible. Modern learning-management systems already support attendance logging without biometric data, and open-governance structures can be implemented within existing university committees. Ethically, it transforms education from a space of surveillance to a space of dialogue. By restoring agency to teachers and students, leaders embody the “courage to care” and practice transformative leadership that aligns efficiency with humanity.

Conclusion

The Nanchang University case offers a critical lesson for educational leaders worldwide: technological efficiency cannot justify ethical indifference. Our proposed solution reframes accountability as a relational practice built on trust, participation, and dialogue. In the age of datafication, ethical leadership requires more than policy compliance. It requires moral imagination. Leaders must not ask, “How can we see more?” but rather, “How can we understand better?” This shift from visibility to understanding is the essence of ethical education in a digital world.

References

Barnes, M. (2012). Care in everyday life: An ethic of care in practice. Policy Press.

Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Bentham, J. (1996). The collective works of Jeremy Bentham: An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Edited by J. H. Burns & H. L. A. Hart. Claredon Press.

Biesta, G. J. (2015). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge.

Botes, A. (2000). A comparison between the ethics of justice and the ethics of care. Journal of advanced nursing, 32(5), 1071-1075. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01576.x

Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.

Cook, K. S., & Hegtvedt, K. A. (1983). Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annual Review of Sociology, 9(1), 217-241. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2946064?seq=1

Furman, G. (2012). Social justice leadership as praxis: Developing capacities through preparation programs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 191-229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X1142739

Hailes, H. P., Ceccolini, C. J., Gutowski, E., & Liang, B. (2021). Ethical guidelines for social justice in psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 52(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000291

Held, V. (2005). The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. Oxford University Press.

Hoare, A., Osuntade, O. B., & Patel, R. (2024). Ethical educational leadership: Untangling ethical dilemmas and imagining alternative futures. TRU Open Press. https://leadershipethics.pressbooks.tru.ca

Keeling, R. P. (2014). An ethic of care in higher education: Well-being and learning. Journal of College and Character, 15(3), 141-148. https://doi.org/10.1515/jcc-2014-0018

Li, J. (2012). Cultural foundations of learning: East and West. Cambridge University Press.

Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819009100403

Lyon, D. (2018). The culture of surveillance: Watching as a way of life. John Wiley & Sons.

Lupton, D., & Williamson, B. (2017). The datafied child: The dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New media & society, 19(5), 780-794. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686328

Nandu N Video APP Privacy Protection Project Team. (2024, October 20). College classroom surveillance sparks heated debate: Beware of the “three layers of concern” under omnipresent monitoring. Nandu N Video. https://m.mp.oeeee.com/a/BAAFRD0000202410201011019.html

National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China. (2021). Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China. Law of the People’s Republic of China. http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/index.html

Palfrey, J. (2017). Safe spaces, brave spaces: Diversity and free expression in education. MIT Press.

Rawls, J. (1951). Outline of a decision procedure for ethics. The Philosophical Review, 60(2), 177-197.

Starratt, R. J. (2005). Building an ethical school: A practical response to the moral crisis in schools. Routledge.

Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical leadership. Jossey-Bass.

Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is procedural justice?: Criteria used by citizens to assess the fairness of legal procedures. Law & Society Review, 22(1), 103-135. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053563

Zuboff, S. (2019, January). Surveillance capitalism and the challenge of collective action. In New Labor Forum (Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 10-29). Sage Publications.