Government publishing office

VerDate 0ct 09 2002 
14:25 Sep 29, 2015
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 5904
Sfmt 5904
F:\WORK\_AGH\062515\95248
SHIRL

---

(1)
IS ACADEMIC FREEDOM THREATENED BY 
CHINA’S INFLUENCE ON U.S. UNIVERSITIES? 
THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2015
H
OUSE OF
R
EPRESENTATIVES
,
S
UBCOMMITTEE ON
A
FRICA
, G
LOBAL
H
EALTH
,
G
LOBAL
H
UMAN
R
IGHTS
, 
AND
I
NTERNATIONAL
O
RGANIZATIONS
,
C
OMMITTEE ON
F
OREIGN
A
FFAIRS
,
Washington, DC. 
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in room 
2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 
Mr. S
MITH
. The subcommittee will come to order. 
And I want to welcome all of our very distinguished panelists 
and guests to this hearing this afternoon. 
And I would like to begin with an opening statement, and then 
I will yield to my two distinguished colleagues if they would like 
to make any opening statements. 
This hearing is 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. 
This hearing is timely for three reasons: The growing number of 
satellite or branch campuses started by the U.S. universities in 
China; the record numbers of Chinese students, 275,000 estimated, 
enrolling in U.S. universities and colleges in China in 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 re-
search. 
Official Chinese Government decrees prohibit teaching and re-
search in seven areas, the so-called seven taboos or seven silences, 
including universal values, press freedom, civil society, citizen 
rights, criticism of the party’s past neo-liberal economics, and the 
independence of the judiciary. All of these so-called seven taboos 
are criticized as Western values, which begs a very significant and 
important question: Are U.S. colleges and universities compro-
mising their images as bastions of free inquiry and academic free-
dom in exchange for China’s education dollars? 
Some may defend concessions made as the cost of doing business 
in an authoritarian country or dictatorship, such as in 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, a 
fellow, or visiting lecturer. Maybe they won’t protest when a pro-
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 
14:25 Sep 29, 2015
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\WORK\_AGH\062515\95248
SHIRL

---

2
fessor is denied a visa because of his or her work that is critical 
of a dictatorship. Maybe such compromises are rationalized as nec-
essary to not offend a major donor or for the greater good of main-
taining access. 
If U.S. universities are only offering Chinese students and fac-
ulty a different name on their diploma or paycheck, is it worth the 
cost and the compromises and the concessions? 
Perry Link, the eminent China scholar, argued during our last 
hearing in this room just a few months ago that the slow drip of 
self-censorship is the most pernicious threat to academic freedom, 
and it undermines both the recognized brands of our major univer-
sities as well as their credibility. 
Self-censorship may be the reason why NYU terminated the fel-
lowship of a world-class human rights activist and hero, Chen 
Guangcheng. As NYU faculty said in their letter to the board of 
trustees, the circumstances surrounding the launch of an NYU sat-
ellite campus in Shanghai and the ending of Chen’s residence cre-
ated a ‘‘public perception, accurate or otherwise, that NYU made 
commitments in order to operate in China.’’ Again, begs another 
question: Did NYU make any commitment or in any way fashion 
their response to Chen’s staying at NYU? 
Let the record show that we had invited NYU’s president or fac-
ulty some 16 times to testify before this subcommittee without suc-
cess. However, we are very, very pleased that Jeffrey Lehman, the 
vice chancellor of the NYU Shanghai campus, is indeed here with 
us today. 
On a personal note, I spent a considerable amount of time with 
Chen Guangcheng when he first came to the United States and 
have continued that friendship ever since. Though NYU offered 
him important sanctuary, he was, in my opinion, treated very rude-
ly at times, particularly when it was clear that he would not isolate 
himself on campus. And that included times when I invited him to 
join Speaker Boehner and Nancy Pelosi at a joint press conference 
to hear from Chen Guangcheng about his beliefs about human 
rights in China, and it was a totally bipartisan effort, and yet that 
was not looked at very favorably. 
Though NYU offered NYU officials and others worked hard to 
cordon off access to Chen, even on the days that he came. I was 
literally moved to the side so I wouldn’t be able to have access to 
him. And that is after holding four hearings, including two in this 
room, when we got him on the phone when he was in a hospital 
in Beijing and hooked him up right here at this microphone, and 
he made his appeal to the American public and to the press that 
he would like to come to the United States. 
Reuters and The Wall Street Journal also reported that there 
was concern that Chen was too involved with so-called antiabortion 
activists, Republicans, and others, which would fit me as a descrip-
tion because I am very pro-life. 
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 election, as Professor Jerry Cohen had 
said in an interview at the time. Certainly, there is some interest 
here, as Hillary Clinton spent a whole chapter in her book detail-
VerDate 0ct 09 2002 
14:25 Sep 29, 2015
Jkt 000000
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6633
Sfmt 6633
F:\WORK\_AGH\062515\95248
SHIRL

---