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.
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
Republican candidate and former US president Donald Trump is to be the 47th president of the US after beating his Democratic rival, US Vice President Kamala Harris, in the election on Tuesday. Trump’s thumping victory — winning 295 Electoral College votes against Harris’ 226 as of press time last night, along with the Republicans winning control of the US Senate and possibly the House of Representatives — is a remarkable political comeback from his 2020 defeat to US President Joe Biden, and means Trump has a strong political mandate to implement his agenda. What does Trump’s victory mean for Taiwan, Asia, deterrence
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
RSS