[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 7, 2015)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E999-E1000]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 7, 2015

  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I recently held a hearing that 
was the second in a series probing the question of whether maintaining 
access to China's lucrative education market undermines the very values 
that make American universities great, including academic freedom. The 
hearing was timely for three reasons: the growing number of satellite 
or branch campuses started by U.S. universities in China; the record 
numbers of Chinese students enrolling in U.S. universities and colleges 
in China each year, bringing with them nearly $10 million a year in 
tuition and other spending; and the recent efforts by the Communist 
Party of China to regain ideological control over universities and 
academic research.
   Official Chinese government decrees prohibit teaching and research 
in seven areas--

[[Page E1000]]

the so-called ``seven taboos:'' universal values; press freedom; civil 
society; citizens' rights; criticism of the Party's past; neoliberal 
economics; and independence of the judiciary.
   All of the ``seven taboos'' are criticized as ``Western ideals.''
   These taboos raise the question: Are U.S. colleges and universities 
compromising their images as bastions of free inquiry and academic 
freedom in exchange for China's education dollars?
   Some may defend any concessions made as the cost of doing business 
in an authoritarian state such as China.
   Maybe a university decides that it won't offer a class on human 
rights in China, maybe they won't invite a prominent dissident as a 
fellow or visiting lecturer, maybe they won't protest when a professor 
is denied a visa because his or her work is critical of a dictator. 
Maybe such compromises are rationalized as necessary to not offend a 
major donor or for the ``greater good'' of maintaining access.
   If U.S. universities are only offering Chinese students and faculty 
a different name on their diploma or paycheck, is it worth the costs 
and compromises?
   Perry Link, the eminent China scholar, argued during our first 
hearing, that the slow drip of self-censorship is the most pernicious 
threat to academic freedom and undermines both the recognized brands of 
major universities and their credibility.
   Self-censorship may be the reason NYU terminated the fellowship of 
world class human rights activist and hero, Chen Guangcheng. As the NYU 
faculty said in their letter to the Board of Trustees, the 
circumstances surrounding the launch of NYU satellite campus 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.'' Did NYU make any such commitments?
   Let the record show that we invited NYU's President and faculty 
sixteen times to testify before this committee, without success. We are 
very pleased that Jeffery Lehman, the Vice-Chancellor of NYU-Shanghai 
campus, joined us at our recent hearing.
   On a personal note, I spent time with Chen when he first came to the 
United States. Though NYU offered him important sanctuary, he was 
treated very rudely at times, particularly when it was clear that he 
would not isolate himself on campus. NYU officials and others worked to 
cordon off access to Chen and to keep him away from Chinese dissidents 
and there was a belief, reported by Reuters and the Wall Street 
Journal, that Chen was too involved with anti-abortion activists, 
Republicans, and others.
   We may never know if NYU experienced ``persistent and direct 
pressure from China'' to oust Chen from his NYU fellowship or whether 
they sought to isolate him in order to keep Chen's story out of the 
2012 Presidential elections as Prof. Jerry Cohen has said in an 
interview at the time. Certainly there is some interest here as Hillary 
Clinton spent a whole chapter in her book detailing the events of 
Chen's escape and exile in the United States.
   Or maybe there wasn't any pressure at all, just self-censorship to 
keep in Beijing's good graces during the final stages of opening the 
NYU-Shanghai campus.
   We are not here to exclusively focus on the sad divorce of Chen 
Guangcheng and NYU. But his ousting raises the question: Is it possible 
to accept lucrative subsidies from the Chinese government, or other 
dictatorships for that matter, operate campuses on their territory and 
still preserve academic freedom and the other values that make 
Americans great?
   The agreements they sign with the host government are often kept 
secret and real information about them can be hard to obtain.
   Foreign educational partnerships are important endeavors--for 
students, collaborative research, cultural understanding, and maybe 
even for the host country in some sense. The U.S. model of higher 
education is the world's best. American faculty, fellowships, and 
exchange programs are effective global ambassadors. We must all seek to 
maintain that integrity. It is in the interests of the U.S. to do so, 
particularly when it comes to China.
   Nevertheless, if U.S. colleges and universities are outsourcing 
academic control, faculty and student oversight, or curriculum to a 
foreign government can they really be ``islands of freedom'' in the 
midst of authoritarian states or dictatorships? Are they places where 
all students and faculty can enjoy the fundamental freedoms denied them 
in their own country?
   The questions we asked are not abstract. The Chinese government and 
Communist Party are waging a persistent, intense and escalating 
campaign to suppress dissent, purge rivals from within the Party, and 
regain ideological control over the arts, media, and the universities.
   This campaign is broader and more extensive than any other in the 
past twenty years. Targets include human rights defenders, the press, 
social media and the Internet, civil rights lawyers, Tibetans and 
Uyghurs, religious groups, NGOs, intellectuals and their students, and 
government officials, particularly those allied with former Chinese 
leader Jiang Zemin.
   Chinese universities have been targeted as well, the recently issued 
Communist Party directive ``Document 30,'' reinforces earlier warnings 
to purge ``Western-inspired notions of media independence, human 
rights, and criticism of Mao [Zedong].
   In a recent speech reported by the New York Times, President Xi 
urged university leaders to ``keep a tight grip on . . . ideological 
work in higher education . . . never allow singing to a tune contrary 
to the party center, never allowing eating the Communist Party's food 
and then smashing the Communist Party's cooking pots.
   Will anyone at NYU or Ft. Hays St or Johns Hopkins or Duke for that 
matter--be allowed to smash any cooking pots?
   It's a serious question, because if your campuses are subsidized by 
the Chinese government, if your joint-educational partnerships are 
``majority-owned'' by the Chinese government, aren't you eating the 
Communist Party's food and then subject to its rules, just like any 
Chinese university?
   There are nine U.S. educational partnerships operating in China. New 
York University-Shanghai opened its doors to students in September 
2013. Three other similar ventures have started since 2013: a Duke 
University campus in Kunshan, Jiangsu Province; a University of 
California-Berkeley School of Engineering research facility in the 
Pudong District of Shanghai; and a Kean University campus in Wenzhou in 
Zhejiang Province. In addition, since 2006, Fort Hays State University 
in Kansas, has partnered with Zhengzhou University/SIAS International 
School, a U.S.-based educational non-governmental organization, to 
provide degrees for thousands of Chinese students.
   China's National Plan for Medium and Long-term Education Reform and 
Development (2010-2020), issued in July 2010, provided Chinese partners 
with a strong incentive to enter into such ventures. The plan exhorted 
Chinese universities to become ``world-class,'' in part by establishing 
``international academic cooperation organizations'' and setting up 
research and development bases with ``high quality educational and 
scientific research institutions from overseas.'' Among the attractions 
for U.S. universities entering into such ventures are generous funding 
from the Chinese government, typically covering all campus construction 
costs and some or all operating costs; revenue from full fee-paying 
Chinese students on China-based campuses, who may later become wealthy 
alumni donors; the potential for a higher profile in China translating 
into the recruitment of more full fee-paying Chinese students to home 
campuses in the United States; opportunities for new global research 
collaborations with Chinese scholars and universities; and, 
opportunities for American students to study abroad.
   I have also initiated a GAO study to review the agreements of both 
satellite campuses in China and of Confucius Institutes in the U.S. I 
know some agreements are public, others are not. In fact, some schools 
made their agreements public after our last hearing. We are looking for 
complete transparency and will be asking all universities and colleges 
to make their agreements with the Chinese government public.
   We need to know if universities and colleges who are starting 
satellite programs in China--can be islands of freedom in China or in 
other parts of the world. We need to know what pressures are being 
placed on them to compromise fundamental freedoms, and what 
compromises, if any, were made to gain a small slice of the China 
educational market.
   These are important questions. Can they be handled by the 
universities, their faculties, and trustees themselves or if there is 
something the U.S. Congress and or State Department can do to ensure 
academic freedom, and other fundamental freedoms are protected.

                          ____________________