Post-Secondary Institutions in the West Should Never Bend to Pressure From Beijing
Udumbara
.
If there is one thing that we in the West can be generally proud of it is our education systems. Sure, there are problems with class size at the elementary levels, lack of focus on marketable skills training in high schools, and an embarrassing left-wing dominance in universities, but overall more—and better—education is a good development over the centuries.
We also have a system where scholars can identify and pursue interests that intrigue them, generally with little outside (or inside) interference. The process is not complicated: find a topic, research it, check your sources, get the views of others, and publish your work. Society as a whole benefits from this passion.
There are of course some challenges to all this. An anti-science wave has arisen where good, peer-reviewed, carefully studied subjects are rejected in favour of clueless “influencers” and this phenomenon will only escalate thanks to social media.
Then there are those who try to get whole research programs shut down because the facts are “inconvenient.” No liberal, secular, democratic society can allow the voices of the few to override legitimate research and study. If certain findings make you uncomfortable, do not read them. Problem solved!
But here is where it gets scary. Prof. Murphy learned, only through a freedom of information request, mind you, that Chinese security service agents had visited the university’s student recruitment office in Beijing and informed them that the university’s website was restricted in the PRC because of her research. An earlier visit to that same office in 2024 was accompanied by a “threatening tone” and a clear message that the study should cease.
Let us unpack this. A Western university took down valid inquiries by one of its professors based solely on a threat from the Chinese regime. Prof. Murphy noted in her piece that both the regime and private companies—probably those using forced Uyghur labour—had been trying to stop her research for years.
When asked why it did this, SHU’s response was a totally unbelievable statement: “(The decision) was taken based on our understanding of a complex set of circumstances at the time, including being unable to secure the necessary professional-indemnity insurance ... and was not based on commercial interests in China”.
Who would fall for that? The university clearly had the Chinese student market in mind (i.e., $$) and feared that its campus in the PRC would be closed. It sacrificed the work of one of its own to placate the Beijing regime in what is one more example of an autocracy trying to fool the world that “there is nothing to see here folks.”
There is, however, a silver lining to this story. After Prof. Murphy threatened to launch a lawsuit the university relented, apologized, and said her research could “continue.” How magnanimous of them!
The importance of this episode cannot be understated. As Prof. Murphy wrote: “Academic freedom is the cornerstone of knowledge production in democratic societies. Preserving it requires that universities shelter researchers from the retaliation of authoritarian governments by refusing to surrender to threats or put harnesses on their faculty’s research agenda.”
How many other institutions are kowtowing to China? How many scholars will find their research un(der)funded for fear of waking the dragon? How many other areas will be affected by this moral cowardice? It is time to take a principled stand that valid research will not only continue but be adequately supported, especially with respect to human rights violations.
As U.S. President John F. Kennedy once said, “The goal of education is the advancement of knowledge and the dissemination of truth.” It seems as if some university administrators need to go back to school to learn the basics.
