Academia’s China Problem…

Preface

The rise of hate crimes and violence against individuals of Asian descent in the U.S. has caused me to revisit some writing that I did several years ago while I was still at the University of Idaho. My last few years at the University of Idaho were spent as the director of the Confucius Institute (2014-2017). I left that position just as Donald Trump was beginning his presidency and was redefining the United States' relationship with China. Although the U.S. has always had a tense relationship with China, the early 21st century was an unprecedented era of openness and collaboration between these two superpowers. During this time there was exponential growth in the number of Chinese students studying at U.S. universities, and there was a concurrent increase in the number of visiting Chinese scholars and faculty members at U.S. institutions of higher education. There were also more U.S. companies and universities opening branch headquarters and campuses in China to promote increased economic development and academic exchange between our two countries.

In 2014, there was a movement in higher education (specifically the University of Chicago) to question the value and function of Confucius Institutes. This touched off a wider wave of criticism regarding U.S. universities’ efforts to recruit students and scholars from China and it allowed the anti-Chinese bias that had long-simmered below the surface to once again rise to prominence in popular and academic discourse. In 2016 I wrote the following short editorial after an academic department at the University of Idaho said that they would not allow Chinese students or scholars to participate in their academic programs because of the Chinese government's policy of censorship in the mass media. I wrote this editorial with the intent of having it published in our local newspaper, but I decided that it might be too pointed in its criticism, so I have let it sit in my "Unpublished" folder for the past 5 years.

The COVID-19 pandemic has only added fuel to the anti-Chinese sentiments in the U.S. and has motivated the current efforts to shut down Confucius Institutes, limit academic exchanges, and worst of all had led to the current epidemic of anti-Asian hate crimes in the U.S.. All of these issues have led me to revisit this editorial, and I feel that it still addresses some important issues. The heart of this piece of writing is rooted in my commitment to fostering diversity in our academic institutions and in my desire to see our institutions of higher education focus on cultivating more inclusion in general. Exclusion of "the other" has never resulted in positive social change; it merely reinforces difference and promotes tribalism and homogeneity. We will never address the deeply seated divisions that are threatening our democracy by refusing to work with the other side.

Editorial

Over the past two years at the University of Idaho Confucius Institute, I have had many wonderful opportunities to facilitate cross-cultural exchanges.  With every exchange, there is a need for each side to accept some level of uncertainty and be willing to be flexible with different languages, belief systems, working styles, and other aspects of culture.  Often when working with China, there is also a need to accept significantly different values with regards to government and political ideology. Unfortunately, I have heard some variation of the following more often than I would like to admit: “I can’t work with China because of their….(fill in the blank: communist/Marxist government, occupation of Tibet, human rights record, repression of religious freedom, media censorship, detention of Uyghurs, etc.)”.   

In most cases, I have encountered this argument when I approach schools, departments, and colleagues about potential collaborations with China.  Colleagues and friends, whom I greatly respect, quickly bristle at the mention of working with Chinese scholars or students who want to come to the U.S. to attend college or conduct research. These academics jump upon their moral high horse and dismiss any potential collaboration because it would somehow be validating the Chinese government's policies.  They would deny Chinese students and scholars the opportunity to experience U.S. culture, because of the actions of a government in which the Chinese students have no say.  At the same time, these same academics, decry Donald Trump’s suggestion to ban all Muslim immigration to the U.S. because of the actions of a few Islamic radicals.  They say that the actions of a few bad apples cannot be used to justify the wholesale discrimination against an entire religious group…while at the same time failing to see that they are doing exactly the same thing to students and scholars from China! 

The thought process seems to be that denying students and academics from China the opportunity to study in the U.S. is somehow going to punish the Chinese government…or at least send some kind of message to the Chinese government.  But, the truth is that denying Chinese students the opportunity to study in U.S. institutions is more likely to ensure that these same students will be educated in China where they will merely reinforce the existing power structures that uphold the Chinese state. If I were to be denied the opportunity to study in China because of the U.S. government’s torture policies at Guantanamo Bay, or our military imperialism in the Middle East, or our unwavering support or Israel’s abuses towards Palestine, it would not change this country's policies or strategic course. By the same token, denying Chinese students the opportunity to study in the U.S. will not change the course of Chinese government policy.

 In the case of media censorship, denying journalism students the opportunity to study in the U.S., where they can see and experience a free press and media culture, is totally backward. The logical and appropriate response would be to welcome these students with open arms and then provide them with a supportive and collegial program that immerses them in the U.S. media and shows them the challenges, benefits, and necessity of a free press.  These students will then be prepared to go back to China where they can potentially work within the Chinese system to open up the press and use it to their advantage to address the censorship, abuses, and other social issues that China is facing.

I have grown tired with academics who espouse the virtues of critical thinking and free speech and who eschew the evils of stereotyping, but quickly close off any conversation about China until China….(fill in the blank: stops putting restrictions on foreign journalists, frees XYZ activist, releases detained Uyghurs, stops persecuting the Falun Gong, frees Tibet and acknowledges the legitimacy of the Dalai Lama, stops building islands in the South China Sea etc. etc. etc.).  Well, I will call shenanigans on this moralistic silliness!  One does not correct bad behavior by ignoring the behavior; to correct behavior you must directly engage with the person who engages in the behavior and show them the consequences of their actions and why their behavior is unacceptable. 

Although it is a gross oversimplification, I would like to suggest that working with China is exactly the same as working with a troubled child. China is a developing nation that is rapidly going through an industrial, social, and technological revolution, the likes of which the Western world has never seen.  What took the Western world nearly 200 years, China is attempting to do in the span of approximately 2 decades!  In developmental terms, China is an awkward adolescent who is trying to find its place in the world, and in that process is making some poor decisions.  Having spent a significant amount of time in China and Taiwan over the past 30 years, I can tell you that the economic and societal changes in those countries are staggering!  Moving from a largely agrarian society to one of the largest economic powers in the world within the space of 20 years is a rate of growth and societal change that would challenge even the best government, let alone a government that is trying to support and maintain order in a nation of 1.5 billion people.  China, like a troubled child, needs to be brought close and be spoken to firmly, but it should not be shut out.  If we, as a nation and as academic institutions, shut out China they will go find other friends and those other friends may not be the kind of people we want China hanging out with. 

Although I don't have solid data, it is relatively easy to see that 95% of the people who have problems working with China, have never been to China and have never worked with Chinese students or academics.   I, like most other academics, come from a liberal worldview and I am appalled at some of the things that China does…but, on the other hand, I am also appalled at some of the things our government does. My main motivations to work with China are to help address some of the injustices and abuses that continue in that country with regards to children with disabilities, but I also understand that ignoring China and refusing to engage with China will not increase my ability to address these abuses.  I have to get to know China, understand Chinese culture, language, and customs, only then can I work with them to try and change the way that children with disabilities are treated.  Ignoring China, or refusing to engage with them until they stop marginalizing, mistreating, and even euthanizing children with disabilities, is merely a convenient way to soothe my conscience without really taking any active responsibility towards trying to address the problem. 

Exclusion has never resulted in greater understanding or a stronger society. As a country, we need to take some time to understand China. Find opportunities to work with Chinese students, collaborate with a visiting Chinese scholar, and find other ways to do as St. Augustine counseled two millenia ago: “Hear the other side" (Audi partem alteram) (De Duabus Animabus, XlV ii).