[ad_1]
Some of the world’s leading scholars on China have called for a united international front in defense of university freedoms, amid claims of a growing Chinese threat to academic research since the passage of Hong Kong’s national security law.
Individual universities will be eliminated unless there is a common agreement to resist interference by the Chinese state in academic research and teaching about China, say a group of 100 scholars, including scholars in the US, UK, Australia and Germany.
They highlight the threat posed by article 38 of the broad national security law, which establishes that the law is applicable to people who live outside the territory and to those who do not come from there.
The law was imposed in Hong Kong by Beijing in June after more than a year of pro-democracy protests.
Academics say Article 38 raises the disturbing prospect that students traveling through Hong Kong and China face lengthy prison terms for academic work deemed subversive by Chinese authorities.
The signatories, representing 71 academic institutions in 16 countries, cite claims that China-related modules are being phased out and students are being self-censored for fear of retaliation.
“Universities are supposed to be a place for vigorous debate and to provide a safe space for staff and students to discuss contentious issues without fear or favor,” reads a letter signed by academics. “The national security law, which according to Article 38 is global in scope and application, will compromise freedom of expression and academic autonomy, creating a chilling effect and encouraging critics of the Chinese party-state to self-censor.”
Dr Andreas Fulda, Principal Investigator at the University of Nottingham Asia Research Institute and one of the initiators of the letter, said: “Several students, both from the UK and mainland China, have privately told me that they are concerned that Comments made in class or essays will be used as evidence against you.
“Universities cannot face this challenge alone. It takes a united front of academic leaders, politicians and senior government officials to mount a common defense of our academic freedoms. We must call the national security law for what it is: a heavy-handed attempt to shut down critical discussion about China, contrary to the quest for knowledge and understanding.
He added: “It is widely known that the Chinese party-state is arming students to monitor their university instructors in mainland China and Hong Kong. Such attempts to instrumentalize students do not stop at the Chinese border. Professor Vanessa Frangville has revealed that the Chinese embassy in Brussels attempted to recruit students from the Brussels campus to express disapproval of a Uighur demonstration in 2018. “
A professor of Sinology at the University of Leipzig recently told Hong Kong activist Glacier Kwong that “their students from Hong Kong, Taiwan and China asked if they could leave their class, because they were concerned that they would be associated with criticism that others made of the Chinese. Communist Party in class ”.
A separate group of British academics this week called for a code of conduct so that higher education professors are consulted at all stages on how partnerships between universities and foreign governments are managed.
The code requires American-style transparency about funding for universities abroad and a national ombudsman to whom violations of the code can be referred. They also want greater protection for foreign students on campus and for UK researchers working in authoritarian states.
The code is expected to be supported in principle by an article from Universities UK to be published this week, which will also cover topics such as protecting intellectual property on campus.
Individual Chinese professors from the University of Oxford have said they intend to anonymize some student work in group settings in an effort to reduce perceived fear of retaliation for discussing flaws in the Chinese model.
John Heathershaw, professor of international relations at the University of Exeter, said: “The open market model of university funding runs the risk of leaving individual universities vulnerable to authoritarian donor approaches, and there needs to be much greater transparency and early stage teacher involvement on the terms under which grants are awarded. “
