In 2021, the Russell Group of 24 leading British universities published an unequivocal statement of its commitment to protecting academic freedom.
The institutions would “always champion the importance of free speech,” the group’s chief executive officer wrote, noting that diverse views and disagreement were fundamental to advancing knowledge. The group might want to have a word with its biggest member. At University College London (UCL), terms and conditions appear to apply.
A UCL lecturer was barred from teaching a research module she created and had been delivering for a decade after Chinese students complained that one of the exercises it contained was “provocative,” according to a thread posted on Elon Musk’s X, following a report in the Telegraph newspaper. Associate professor of energy and social sciences Michelle Shipworth was told she had been accused of bias, which was damaging the reputation of her employer and its prospects of attracting students from China.
Illustration: Yusha
It is no great surprise to see principle come out the loser in a perceived clash between academic ideals and commercial pragmatism. UCL, based in central London, has more Chinese students than any other Russell Group university: 10,785 in the 2021 to 2022 academic year, data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency showed. That also represented the biggest share of enrollment among the universities: 23 percent of UCL’s total intake of more than 46,000 students. Considering that overseas students in the UK pay on average 2.4 times as much in tuition fees as their domestic counterparts, they provide a critical revenue stream that any administrator would be loath to jeopardize.
Are these two imperatives really in conflict, though? The right not to be provoked or offended is not part of the deal in British education — in theory at least — and this is, after all, what overseas students are paying for.
“Universities must be places where students and staff can openly and rigorously question current orthodoxies and beliefs, and explore new areas of intellectual enquiry, regardless of whether this involves or leads to the expression of views and opinions that may be uncomfortable, offensive or upsetting,” the Office for Students, the UK’s independent higher education regulator, says on its Web site.
That spirit of fearless inquiry dates back to the medieval era, when the first European universities were established and granted control over their own affairs by papal edicts and royal charters. Before that, to ancient Greece and the Socratic method, which aims to foster critical thinking skills via a dialogue in which the teacher poses challenging questions to the student.
The UCL module that caused offense fits squarely into this tradition.
The slide at issue posed the question: “Why does China have so many slaves?” It is easy to understand how nationalist students might have bristled at this framing. But it is also clear that the purpose of the exercise was not to denigrate or discriminate against China or its people. It was, rather, an invitation to critically examine and rebut factual claims and use of data in a poorly constructed survey.
As Shipworth pointed out, if the module had been taught for 10 years without incident, how did it suddenly become controversial? (A UCL spokesman told Sky News the issues raised were clearly concerning, and it was working to establish what happened.)
A one-party state like China operates under a different ethos. Truth, rather than being open to be discovered through a process of free questioning, has been decided, at least in the political realm, and is to be handed down from on high. As the country’s economic and geopolitical power has grown, the party-state has put more effort into trying to shape global perceptions of China. This has included attempts to restrict academic debate on subjects such as Taiwan and Tibet in countries from Australia and the US to the UK.
UCL is not an isolated incident.
The University of Nottingham closed its School of Contemporary Chinese Studies in 2016 following pressure from Beijing, Channel 4’s Dispatches said in November. (The university denied the school was closed for political reasons).
University leaders dealing with complaints of bias and cultural insensitivity should keep in mind this backdrop. Gauging the motivations of those who speak up might not be straightforward. Chinese students are monitored when they are abroad, and this might influence how they choose to express themselves.
Responding to complaints by promptly removing the source of irritation makes the commitment to academic freedom look hollow. In the end, it might also be bad for business. UK’s worldwide reputation for educational excellence rests on its tradition of openness. If that is diluted every time a student professes discomfiture with the subject material, then all are being shortchanged. They deserve to get what they paid for.
Matthew Brooker is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business and infrastructure. Formerly, he was an editor for Bloomberg News and the South China Morning Post.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS