Government publishing office

34
classrooms and ‘‘by no means allow teaching materials that dis-
seminate Western values.’’
The reason for this prohibition was provided by the state-run 
Global Times paper that Susan mentioned. They wrote, ‘‘Young 
students and teachers are the major groups used by enemy forces 
to penetrate and divide China.’’ This is the attitude. 
So Yuan’s statement sounds like a direct order to Chinese uni-
versities and a direct threat to American schools that offer Amer-
ican degrees on Chinese soil. If Western textbooks, as China 
claims, are vectors that infect young Chinese minds and weaken 
the country, are not Western faculty members and universities 
more dangerous still? 
And it is this situation, I think, that has compelled this sub-
committee to ask the question about whether academic freedom can 
be maintained while working in and with a country such as the 
PRC. 
Despite these difficulties, however, I would argue that there is a 
way forward under the current set of circumstances. Now, cir-
cumstances could change, and there is definitely a time to pull out 
tent stakes and say that, yes, while the perfect may be the enemy 
of the good, China is imposing conditions on American universities 
that they cannot meet, as you mentioned. There could be a time to 
leave, but we are not there yet. 
And the reason, I think, is that, despite Xi Jinping’s ideology 
campaign and despite the political character of Chinese univer-
sities, American universities have been able to find ways to inter-
act with Chinese counterparts that do not threaten academic free-
dom. 
How can this be done? Is there room for honorable maneuver? I 
think there is because, as Susan has suggested, Xi Jinping’s cam-
paign and Yuan Guiren’s pronouncements against American text-
books haven’t meant much in practice yet on campuses. There is 
an atmosphere of hesitancy and fear in Chinese academic, cultural, 
and media circles that we haven’t seen since the aftermath of the 
Tiananmen massacre, but, to date, there have been no reports of 
Chinese faculty being required to revise their reading lists or of 
Chinese colleges altering their curriculum. There has of yet been 
no systematic implementation of this very backward and draconian 
ideological campaign. 
Many Chinese students and scholars within China, furthermore, 
question and mock openly Yuan Guiren’s call to restrict Western 
textbooks, and they do this in state-run media. So it is hard to 
keep track of what all this means in China. 
The president of Tiankai University wrote in the Communist 
Party flagship paper, the People’s Daily, ‘‘I have read people on the 
Internet saying that the ranks of academics must be cleansed, puri-
fied, and rectified. I can’t agree with this. This was the mentality 
of 1957,’’ the violent anti-rightist campaign, ‘‘or 1966,’’ which was 
the launch of the cultural revolution. Other Chinese critics point 
out gleefully that Marxism is itself a Western idea and that this 
campaign is, therefore, self-contradictory and incoherent. 
So we don’t yet know where this is headed. There is space that 
is in play. And it may be that Beijing is only paying lip service to 
rectification on Chinese campuses because Beijing remains con-
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 
14:25 Sep 29, 2015
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\WORK\_AGH\062515\95248
SHIRL

---

35
flicted about the influence of the West. We still lead, we, the West, 
with the United States at the fore, lead the world in nearly every 
field of academic inquiry. 
And Xi Jinping surely knows that, despite demonizing Western 
culture, China cannot meet his reform goals unless it masters 
Western learning. His desire to make China a leader in the inter-
national knowledge economy and his demand that Chinese univer-
sities produce more innovative students are at odds with his calls 
for ideological purity. And everyone in China knows that his own 
daughter is a graduate of Harvard University, so it makes it hard 
to be too loud about these issues. 
So lastly, I would just like to make a few specific recommenda-
tions going forward to universities that want to work with China. 
One is, I would suggest that all memoranda of understanding 
with Chinese universities state clearly that any relationship or pro-
gram can be concluded at any time by either party if its standards 
of academic freedom, academic integrity, or academic rigor are 
compromised. This clause will serve as a warning to both sides and 
a reminder of first principles, and it will protect American partners 
if Xi’s ideological agenda is actually put into practice, at which 
point these programs do become untenable, in my view. MOUs 
should also, as the chair suggests, be made public, as any practices 
that fall short of full transparency will fuel a reasonable skep-
ticism, the skepticism that American faculty, students, and other 
university stakeholders rightly have. 
American faculty, furthermore, and having worked in Hopkins 
and other universities I have seen this in practice, American fac-
ulty should be consulted at every stage in the planning of coopera-
tive ventures with China, and faculty should vote to decide wheth-
er projects meet their standards of academic quality. This is essen-
tial because university administrators have to consider financial 
and political matters while faculty loyalty is to their discipline, to 
their departments, and to standards, so faculty need to lead. 
U.S. colleges and universities should not allow the Chinese Gov-
ernment or any other national government, or its agencies, to ap-
point faculty or instructors on American campuses, to violate U.S. 
fair hiring laws, or to dictate program conditions that violate U.S. 
best practices. 
And lastly, the U.S. Government, you asked what the govern-
ment can do, we should ask regularly in our representations, ask 
Beijing to clarify its opposition to Western culture and its policies 
restricting foreign NGOs. China does not shy away, as you know, 
from accusing American media of bias against China. We shouldn’t 
be reticent about asking why Beijing has a formal campaign de-
monizing our values. 
But in closing, even as we remain vigilant, I think that we must 
remember that our educational institutions, culture, and ideas 
have vastly more influence in China than China has here. That in-
fluence is made possible by our policy of engagement. Curtailing 
engagement would cut off our influence, which would serve neither 
American interests nor those of the Chinese people. 
Thank you. 
[The prepared statement of Mr. Daly follows:]
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 
14:25 Sep 29, 2015
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\WORK\_AGH\062515\95248
SHIRL

---