[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 148 (Monday, December 8, 2014)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1747-E1748]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    IS ACADEMIC FREEDOM THREATENED BY CHINA'S INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN 
                             UNIVERSITIES?

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, December 8, 2014

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, last week, I convened a hearing 
that was the first in a series probing the question whether China's 
`soft power' educational initiatives are undermining academic freedom 
at U.S. schools and universities. We see it manifested primarily in two 
ways. The first is in the building of satellite campuses in China for 
American universities, where Chinese ``rules of engagement'' are said 
to hold sway--in other words, places where no criticism of the 
government, or promotion of democracy and freedom, is allowed. Second, 
we see it in the myriad outposts of Chinese soft power that have opened 
on campuses throughout the United States, so-called ``Confucius 
Institutes,'' whose curricula integrates Chinese Government policy on 
contentious issues such as Tibet and Taiwan and whose hiring practices 
explicitly exclude Falun Gong practitioners. It should be noted that we 
are seeing emerging faculty opposition to these Institutes, as well as 
to the all-too cozy and lucrative arrangements which American 
universities have with institutions affiliated with the Chinese 
government.
   This prompts us, however, to ask the question: Is American higher 
education for sale? And, if so, are U.S. colleges and universities 
undermining the principle of academic freedom--and, in the process, 
their credibility--in exchange for China's education dollars?
   A number of years ago the author James Mann wrote a book called 
``The China Fantasy,'' where he recounts how in the 1990s some American 
business leaders and government officials put forward the ``fantasy'' 
that free trade with China would be the catalyst for political 
liberalism.
   I was in China in the early 1990's. Despite the ongoing jailing and 
executions of dissidents, American businessmen in China told me that if 
we just trade more, the dictatorship will soon matriculate into a 
democracy.
   As we all now know now, China has failed to democratize, despite 
increases in the standard of living of its citizens. Political 
repression is an all-too-common occurrence. Yet U.S. policy toward 
China continues to overlook abuses of fundamental human rights for the 
sake of business opportunities and economic interest.
   But what about U.S. universities, who often tout their adherence to 
higher ideals, and equate their ``non-profit'' status of a badge of 
good citizenship which puts them above reproach. Perhaps they too are 
engaged in their own version of a ``China fantasy,'' willing to accept 
limitations on the very principles and freedoms that are the foundation 
of the U.S. system of higher education, justifying quiet compromises 
they would never entertain at home by telling themselves that they are 
helping bring about change in China.
   As Dr. Perry Link brilliantly argued, these compromises often take 
the form of self-censorship of what universities and faculty teach, who 
they invite to speak, what fellows they accept in residence. So long as 
the dragon is not provoked, they think they will be allowed to continue 
doing their work, slowly changing China from the inside. But are these 
American universities changing China, or is China changing these 
American universities?
   What is the reason that New York University, for example, terminated 
the fellowship of the world class human rights advocate and hero, Chen 
Guangcheng? NYU is one of those prestigious universities for which 
China built a campus, a satellite of the university in Shanghai. Though 
the Chinese Government laid out the funds, the transaction involved a 
moral cost: As certain members of the NYU faculty wrote in a letter to 
the university's Board of Trustees, the circumstances surrounding the 
launch of NYU satellite campus

[[Page E1748]]

in Shanghai and the ending of Chen's residence created a ``public 
perception, accurate or otherwise, that NYU made commitments in order 
to operate in China.''
   We have repeatedly invited NYU's President and faculty to testify 
before this committee, without success. On five separate occasions, we 
gave NYU 15 dates to appear. As this is the first hearing in a series 
of hearings we intend to hold on this topic, I hope that they will 
agree to come at another time, so they can fully state their case.
   On a personal note, I spent considerable time with Chen Guangcheng 
when he first came to the United States, having worked his case since 
2004 which included four Congressional hearings exclusively dedicated 
to his freedom. It is my impression that NYU officials and others 
sought to isolate him from supporters viewed as too conservative or 
from those they considered Chinese dissidents. We may never know if NYU 
experienced what Chen himself termed as ``persistent and direct 
pressure from China'' to oust him, or if it was simply an act of 
prudent self-censorship to keep in Beijing's good graces.
   I don't know the answer, but it is my conviction that self-
censorship and the chilling effect this has is an even more pernicious 
threat to fundamental freedoms and the principle of academic freedom. 
One of our witnesses, the respected academic Dr. Perry Link, has made 
this case repeatedly over the years, drawing on his own personal 
experiences, and I thank him for being here today.
   We were not there to re-litigate the sad divorce of Chen Guangcheng 
and NYU. It is only a small, disheartening part of the larger issue: 
whether American universities will compromise academic freedom to get a 
piece of the lucrative Chinese education market which is roughly $27 
billion dollars a year.
   The hearing I held last week marked the beginning of a long hard 
look at the costs and benefits of the growing number of Chinese 
educational partnerships started by U.S. universities and colleges, 
including exchange programs and satellite campuses in China and 
Confucius Institutes in the U.S.
   While foreign educational partnerships are important endeavors--for 
students, collaborative research, cultural understanding, and even for 
the host country--I think we all can agree that U.S. colleges and 
universities should not be outsourcing academic control, faculty and 
student oversight, or curriculum to a foreign government. 
Unfortunately, there is now some evidence emerging that gives rise to 
the need for this hearing.
   The American Association of University Professors, or AAUP, along 
with its sister organization in Canada, published a report in July, 
blasting the Confucius Institute model as a partnership ``that 
sacrificed the integrity of the [host] university and its academic 
staff'' by requiring ``unacceptable concessions'' that allow ``the 
Confucius Institutes to advance a state agenda in the recruitment and 
control of academic staff, in the choice of curriculum, and in the 
restriction of debate.''
   The AAUP concluded by saying that ``Confucius Institutes function as 
an arm of the Chinese state and are allowed to ignore academic 
freedom'' and recommended shutting down U.S. Confucius Institutes 
unless they could meet certain standards of academic freedom and 
transparency.
   The Confucius Institutes are China's major soft power push, an 
attempt to increase the number of young people studying (and ideally 
coming to admire) Chinese culture and language. This is not harmful in 
itself, for Chinese culture and language--as distinct from its 
political culture--is, indeed, admirable. But while some U.S. 
university administrators say the influence of Confucius Institutes is 
benign, University of Chicago professor Marshal Salhins, has called 
Confucius Institutes ``academic malware'' inimical to the U.S. model of 
academic freedom.
   What we should do is welcome U.S.-China educational partnerships 
that promote cultural understanding and critical language skills and 
protect academic freedom, that allow the teaching of sensitive topics, 
and are not subject to any of the same rules that govern Chinese 
academic institutions--where professors are fired or jailed for 
exercising the universal right to free speech.
   Indeed, there is a U.S. national security interest in having U.S. 
students learn Chinese, but such language skills should be taught on 
our terms and without the baggage brought by Confucius Institute ties. 
And, if those freedoms are violated or compromised, we need to find 
some recourse, whether through withholding Department of Education 
funds or State Department exchange program funds from schools that 
willingly compromise the principles of academic freedom and human 
rights to gain a small share of the Chinese educational market.
   I will be asking for a GAO study to review the agreements of both 
satellite campuses in China and of Confucius Institutes in the U.S. I 
would like to know if those agreements are public, whether they 
compromise academic or other freedoms of faculty, students, and workers 
and whether Chinese teachers are allowed the freedom to worship as they 
please and teach about Tiananmen, Tibet, and Taiwan.
   I will also ask the GAO to study whether U.S. satellite campuses in 
China operate differently from Chinese universities and whether there 
is a two-tier system in place, where Chinese students and faculty have 
more restrictions placed their activities and research than U.S. 
students and faculty. I will also ask whether Communist Party 
committees operate on campus, whether fundamental freedoms are 
protected for both Chinese and U.S. students and faculty--religious 
freedom, Internet freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of association, 
and whether the universities are required to enforce China's draconian 
population control policies.
   These are important questions. We need to look at whether these 
issues can be handled by the universities, their faculties, and 
trustees themselves or if there is something the U.S. Congress must do 
to ensure academic freedom is protected.
   U.S. universities and colleges should reflect and protect the 
highest principles of freedom and transparency. They should be islands 
of freedom where foreign students and faculty can enjoy the fundamental 
freedoms denied them in their own country.

                          ____________________