Testimony of jeffrey s. Lehman vice chancellor of nyu shanghai
Yüklə 489,2 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- on “Non-Mainland Non-Governmental Organization Management Law of the People’s Republic of China (Draft)” June 4, 2015
APPENDIX 4 TO THE TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY S. LEHMAN Universities in a Complex World by Jeffrey S. Lehman
Published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 9, 2011, p. B14 U niversities are not monasteries. To teach, conduct research, and contribute to the world, they forgo isolation from impurity. They push themselves to engage directly with flawed people and institutions, trying to ensure that their activities do good and not evil. The mission can be challenging. What if someone who misbehaved wishes to atone by endowing a scholarship for impoverished students at a university? Is it OK to accept such a gift and to honor the donor? As a general principle, yes. As long as the donated funds were not the fruits of criminal behavior, and as long as the university does not bless the misbehavior, it is generally better that the university do good by helping the poor than that it seek isolation from impurity. But the essential caveat— not blessing the donor’s misbehavior—can sometimes be tricky business. This challenge does not arise only in the context of individual donors. Universities must confront similar questions whenever they are active in a country where the government misbehaves. Again, the guiding principles seem fairly clear. On the one hand, the university must not be an active participant in odious behavior. It must not provide the mechanisms for implementing intolerable policies. And it must not grant its blessing to such misconduct. On the other hand, universities as institutions have no general duty to speak truth to power. Silence in the face of government action is not endorsement. If, for example, the American government engages in waterboarding, racial profiling, regressive taxation, or wasteful farm subsidies, universities properly stand mute. Their missions are in the domains of teaching, research, and public service; the general watchdog role belongs with individual members of their communities. Nonetheless, things sometimes get messy. Some forms of odious behavior by governments do call for a response from the university as an institution. Think of government actions that, as applied in practice, meaningfully disrupt the core functions of the university. What kind of disruption triggers this responsibility? And what kind of response is called for? Universities in a Complex World
p. 2 Jeffrey S. Lehman In these situations, a university’s leaders cannot escape the task of highly contextualized, case-specific analysis. Even important general values often have blurry boundaries, especially when they conflict with one another. Consider, for example, the freedoms enjoyed by American college students. If a government denies them access to alcohol or pornography, is that inconsistent with the university’s core mission? What about access to Wikileaks? What about access to hate speech? What about access to criticisms of the host government? If a university’s leaders do conclude that government action is odious and undermines its mission, calibrating an appropriate response can also be excruciatingly difficult. “Going public” with a protest is sometimes more effective than working behind the scenes, but it is perhaps more often less effective. “Forcing the issue” early is sometimes more effective than patience, but it is perhaps more often less effective. It bears mention that a university leader’s primary responsibility in such circumstances is to be as effective as possible. That means silently withstanding the criticisms of those who demand public proof that the university is not being cowardly (or even complicit) in the face of odious behavior, if public statements might undermine the effectiveness of private efforts that are under way. It also means, however, that such leaders are well advised to maintain careful private records of their thoughts and actions, so that history can ultimately give their decisions a fair review. American universities’ new willingness to understand themselves as transnational institutions, and to engage the world more fully, deserves our praise. That engagement extends the reach of intellectual values we cherish, it opens new possibilities for a kind of collaborative research that can generate otherwise unobtainable breakthroughs, and it provides fertile soil on which students of all nationalities might acquire the skills they need to work effectively across cultural borders. Indeed, in the age of globalization, American universities’ embrace of their new role could be as consequential as was their commitment last century to lead humanity’s exploration of Vannevar Bush’s “endless frontier” in the sciences. But this new role brings special new challenges. And university leaders must be prepared to face them with sensitivity, subtlety, and courage.
APPENDIX 5 TO THE TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY S. LEHMAN Comments from U.S. Universities 1 on “Non-Mainland Non-Governmental Organization Management Law of the People’s Republic of China (Draft)” June 4, 2015 The U.S. universities and institutions of higher education named below have carefully reviewed the Non-Mainland Non-Governmental Organization Management Law of the People’s Republic of China (Draft) (the “Draft Law”) and appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. We are very concerned about whether and how the Draft Law would apply to the broad range of educational activities that non-Mainland universities and our personnel engage in with our Chinese counterparts. While the comments included here are the views of the below-named U.S. universities, we believe that they reflect concerns that are relevant to nearly all non-Mainland universities (including universities domiciled in the Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions and Taiwan) that conduct educational and research activities and exchange in China. 1. Application to Universities. The Draft Law applies to “non-Mainland non- governmental organizations” (境外非政府组织), which are further defined as “non- profit, non-governmental social organizations” (非营利，非政府社会组织). It is not clear whether these terms are meant to include non-Mainland universities. The terms “non-Mainland non-governmental organizations” (境外非政府组织) and “non-profit, non-governmental social organizations” (非营利，非政府社会组织) do not fully correspond to the terms traditionally used to describe non-Mainland universities either in their home countries or in the statutes and regulations of the People’s Republic of China. The term “social organization” (社会组织), which appears in certain Chinese regulations, is not used to describe non-Mainland universities, or even Mainland universities, which are typically public institutions (事业单位). While many non-Mainland universities are non-profit private universities, a significant percentage of the world’s universities are non-profit public universities, including most Chinese universities and many of the world’s top- ranked universities. 1
These comments are jointly submitted by the following U.S. universities and institutions of higher education: Boston University; Columbia University; Cornell University; Duke University; New York University; Northwestern University; Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey；University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; University of Iowa; University of Michigan; and Vermont Law School.
While non-Mainland universities are often organized as non-profit institutions, for-profit universities do exist and play a significant role in the education sector in many countries.
The ambiguity of the terminology in the Draft Law consequently raises a question as to whether the Draft Law is intended to apply to all non-Mainland universities, to some non-Mainland universities, or to no non-Mainland universities.
2. Scope of Activities. The Draft Law applies to non-Mainland non-governmental organizations “conducting activities” in China. The term “activities” (活动) is not defined in the Draft Law and, if read broadly, could include almost any program, event or activity that a non-Mainland entity or its personnel conducts in China.
If the Draft Law were to apply to non-Mainland universities and the term “activities” were given a broad reading, then even a single instance of the following activities, among others, would require registration under the Draft Law:
conducts an international research conference in China Faculty of a non-Mainland university travel to China to interview applicants for graduate school at the non-Mainland university Faculty of a non-Mainland university travel to China to present a seminar or lecture in a course Faculty of a non-Mainland university conduct a training workshop for a Chinese government agency in China A non-Mainland university is engaged by a Chinese entity to assist on the establishment and development of an educational program or research enterprise at a Chinese university or research institute The medical center or hospital of a non-Mainland university engages in research collaborations, clinical advisory projects, or training or education programs with Chinese universities or hospitals Faculty, graduate students and undergraduate students of a non-Mainland university travel to China in academic exchange programs with Chinese universities Faculty of a non-Mainland university travel to China as part of joint research projects conducted with Chinese universities A non-Mainland university organizes a networking event for its alumni living and working in China
A non-Mainland university, through its alumni association, sponsors a tour of China so that its alumni and their families can develop a better understanding of China and the non-Mainland university’s programs in China A student singing group from a non-Mainland university travels to China to participate in a competition that is properly licensed under existing Chinese law and regulations
3. Implications for the Internationalization of Chinese Universities. The Outline of China’s National Plan for Medium and Long-term Education Reform and Development (2010-2020) included a directive that Chinese higher education institutions open their faculties to the world, participate in creating collaborative academic organizations, and establish research centers with foreign education and research institutes.
Following that directive, many Chinese higher educational institutions and the provinces or municipalities that support them have initiated a wide range of academic exchange and educational activities and established united research and development centers in China with non-Mainland universities.
We are very concerned that the requirements of the Draft Law may have a dampening effect on both existing and future initiatives. Non-Mainland universities, especially smaller non-Mainland universities and non-Mainland universities with more limited programs in China, may decide that the complexity of the registration process, the on-going operational requirements, and the related financial and administrative burdens necessitate modifying, temporarily suspending, or even closing their programs.
4. Recommendation We recommend that the Draft Law be clarified to clearly exclude from the coverage of the Draft Law non-Mainland universities and other institutions of higher education, public and private, for-profit and not-for-profit, and the activities of their personnel in China. Most non-Mainland university activity in China is conducted (1) in partnership with established and qualified Chinese universities, or approved institutions, (2) openly and pursuant to existing Chinese laws and regulations, and/or (3) in furtherance of exchange and understanding between the People’s Republic of China and other countries. Applying the Draft Law to non-Mainland universities may have the unintended and negative effect of restricting or severely reducing academic and research exchange and cooperation between the People’s Republic of China and the world’s very best academic institutions. 1 美国大学
1 就《中华人民共和国境外非政府组织管理法（草案二次审议稿）》的联 名意见 2015 年 6 月 4 日 联名提交本意见的美国大学和高等院校已仔细研读《中华人民共和国境外非政府组织管理 法（草案二次审议稿）》（下称《草案》），并很高兴能借此机会提出以下意见。 我们关心《草案》是否以及怎么影响境外大学和其相关人员在中国与中方大学共同开展、 范围广泛的教育活动。虽然本意见仅代表下列署名美国大学的观点，但是我们认为，这些 意见也反映了几乎所有在中国开展教育、研究和交流活动的境外大学（包括位于香港、澳 门特别行政区以及台湾的大学）所共同关注的问题。 1. 《草案》是否适用于大学及其他高等院校： 《草案》适用的对象为“境外非政府组织”，而“境外非政府组织” 被进一步定义为 “非营利、非政府的社会组织”。但该定义是否将涵盖境外的大学及其他高等院校， 并不明确。
不论是在境外大学的所属国家，或是在中华人民共和国的行政法规中，“境外非政府 组织”和“非营利、非政府的社会组织”这两个术语，与一般用来指代境外大学的用 语并不完全对应。 在某些中国行政法规中，“社会组织”一词通常不包括境外大学，或甚至不包 括境內的大学。一般来说，中国境内的大学属于“事业单位”。 虽然许多境外大学是非营利的私立机构，但在许多国家，很大一部分的大学是 非营利的公立机构，包括大多数的中国大学和许多世界一流大学。 虽然境外的大学通常是非营利组织，但也存在营利性的大学，而且它们在许多 国家的教育领域做出很大的贡献。 因此，《草案》不明确的用语导致其适用范围不清的问题：《草案》是否旨在适用于 所有的境外大学，或适用于一部分境外大学，又或是完全不适用于境外大学。 2. 活动的范畴： 《草案》适用于在中国“开展活动”的境外非政府组织。但《草案》并未明确定义 “活动”一词。如果采取广义的解释，该词几乎可以涵盖境外组织及其相关人员在中 国开展的一切计划、项目和其他活动。 1 本意见由以下美国大学及高等院校共同提交：波士顿大学、哥伦比亚大学、康奈尔大学，杜克大学、 纽 约大学、西北大学， 罗格斯–新泽西州立大学、伊利诺伊大学厄巴纳－香槟分校、爱荷华大学，密歇根大 学以及佛蒙特法学院。
2
假设《草案》适用于境外大学，且“活动”一词采取广义解释，则许多即便是一次性 的活动，例如下列活动，都必须依照《草案》的规定进行登记：
一所境外大学与中国政府机关单位在中国合作举办一场国际学术会议。 境外大学的老师前往中国为该校的研究生院面试申请人。 境外大学的老师在中国举办的一个研讨会上做专题展示或在课堂上做一场演讲。 境外大学的老师前往中国为中国政府机关举办一次培训讲座。 境外大学应中国单位邀请访华，协助中国大学或科研机构设立并发展一个教育 项目或研究计划。 一所境外大学的医学院或医院与中国大学或医院合作开展科研、临床咨询、培 训或教育项目 。 境外大学的老师、研究生或本科生访华，在中国大学进行学术交流。 境外大学的老师为执行与中国大学的联合研究计划访华。 境外大学为其在中国居住与工作的校友们举办一次联谊活动。 境外大学通过校友会为其校友举办一趟中国行，以促进校友及其家庭成员对中 国和该校在中国项目活动的了解。 境外大学的学生合唱团访华参加已经依法登记的正规歌唱比赛。 3. 对中国大学国际化的影响： 中国《国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要（2010-2020 年）》规定，中国高等院校 应面向世界，支持参与和设立国际学术合作组织，支持与境外教育科研机构建立联合 研发基地。
许多中国高等教育机构根据此纲要，在当地省或市（地）级政府的支持下，与境外大 学在中国合作开展了广泛的学术交流和教育活动，并且建立联合研发中心。
我们担心《草案》的规定将会抑制现有及未来的合作方案。境外大学，尤其是规模较 小或在中国的项目有限的境外大学，可能因为登记程序的繁琐、持续满足《草案》关 于组织营运规定的要求、以及相关财务和行政上的负担，不得不改变、甚至于暂停或 者终止其在中国的项目。
4. 建议：
我们建议《草案》明确排除境外大学和其他高等院校以及其相关人员的活动，包括所 有公立和私立大学、营利和非营利大学。绝大多数的境外大学在中国的活动是（1）与 依法设立或经批准的中国大学或机构合作开展的，（2）依据现有中国法规[公开开展] 的，且或（3）为了促进中外交流与理解。若是对境外大学适用《草案》，可能造成意 料之外的负面影响，将严重限制或减少中国与境外顶尖学术及科研机构的交流与合作。 Yüklə 489,2 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|