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.
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS