5
have also had the
opportunity to read Confucius, Mencius, Mozi, Sun Zi, Sima Qian, and
Mao Zedong. These are the same readings I would use if I were teaching the course in
New York. In Appendix 2 to this testimony, you will find the complete syllabi of this
course from the first two years in which I taught it.
IV. NYU Shanghai Helps to Advance International Norms of Intellectual Inquiry
People who care about higher education are very interested in NYU Shanghai.
We are pioneering a new approach to twenty-first century higher education, and we
believe that our graduates will be prepared to contribute in entirely new ways to the
development of a world where people from different cultures can cooperate to address
challenges and opportunities, and can forestall conflict and misunderstanding.
For that reason, we receive a constant stream of visitors to our campus
– on
average dozens every week. If any members of this Subcommittee or their staffs should
visit China in the future, we would be delighted to welcome them to our campus, so that
they can have the opportunity to observe, and to speak with our students, our faculty, and
our administrative staff. There is simply no substitute for first-hand observation.
Of course, it is understandable for people who have not been able to visit to
wonder about what it is like to operate a university like ours inside China. And I have on
several occasions encountered suggestions by such people that it is somehow
inappropriate for NYU to be present in China.
Such suggestions might be divided into two groups. The first group includes a
variety of absolutist
positions, to the effect that no American university should be present
in China at all. One such position alleges that such a presence serves to “legitimate”
government practices we do not approve of. A second such position alleges that
government practices outside the campus necessarily make it impossible to offer a
genuine liberal education inside the campus. A third such position alleges that no
coherent understanding of academic freedom fails to include unrestricted freedom to
advocate peacefully in favor of change in the larger society.
A second group of criticisms is more nuanced. These arguments suggest that,
although it might be possible to operate a university appropriately inside a society that
has features of which we disapprove, it would be very easy to go astray in a country like
China. Accordingly, they argue that it would be better to stay away entirely than to run
the risk of error.
At the end of the day, I do not believe any of these suggestions holds up under
scrutiny.
In the first instance, these positions ignore the benefits of engagement. Our
universities are properly sources of enormous pride for America. They nurture skills and
6
values that help students to be productive citizens, contributors to the well-being of their
societies. They nurture an ability to see things from different perspectives. We are all
better off if American students have the opportunity to learn about China while studying
at a university that embraces NYU’s value system.
Significantly, however, American students are not the only ones who stand to
benefit from NYU Shanghai
’s presence. China is in the middle of a period of
astonishing change. Within Chinese society there is heated debate about what
direction change should take over the next two decades, and about what goals
should take precedence over others. Some prominent individuals are asserting that
China should not draw inspiration from the values and practices of universities
outside China, while others are arguing strongly in favor of those same values and
practices.
This latter group will benefit if they can point to the positive impact of
schools like NYU Shanghai on Chinese students. And since the values and practices
of such schools promote norms of mutual respect and understanding across
national borders, the entire world can be said to have a stake in their success.
I do not believe any of the critiques I have mentioned come close to offsetting
those benefits. The more absolutist positions make inaccurate assumptions about the
relationship between American universities and the larger society. American universities
were not established on a firmament of perfect respect for human dignity. Liberal
education and academic inquiry are not fragile flowers that can survive only in perfect
soil. To the contrary, America
’s best universities were established in a flawed land, one
of whose greatest virtues was its commitment to improvement, to form a more perfect
union. Precisely because those universities are hardy defenders of academic freedom and
liberal education, they have been important contributors to America
’s progress. (I
discussed these issues at length in a speech at Columbia University, a speech that I attach
as Appendix 3.)
The less absolutist positions, however, are more reasonable, and point to a set of
questions that we take seriously. A university such as ours cannot function if students
and faculty are not free to ask questions, and to entertain arguments, that might be
disruptive and even offensive to others. The search for understanding must be allowed to
proceed unimpeded, down blind alleys and unproductive pathways, against the
headwinds of conventional wisdom and ideological correctness. Norms of civility may
be imposed, but they must not cut off genuine and rigorous inquiry.
At NYU Shanghai we are vigilant in assuring that these principles of academic
freedom are honored every day. So far, so good. But if circumstances were to change
and those principles were abrogated, NYU Shanghai would have to be closed down.