China’s Pernicious Presence on American Campuses

Jon-Michael Sullivan, The Augusta Chronicle via AP images

Since 2005, the People’s Republic of China has established more than 100 Confucius Institutes at American colleges. The philosopher’s name is a smoke screen. These institutes have nothing to do with Confucius; they are instruments of China’s statecraft.

Confucius Institutes could be wholesome attempts to foster cultural exchange, in the manner of the Alliance Française or the Goethe-Institut. Outwardly they have some of that character. Confucius Institutes offer courses in Chinese language, culture, and the arts. But the Chinese Communist Party, which organizes and funds the Confucius Institutes through a state agency, the Hanban, is not known for altruistic cultural outreach.

My colleagues and I at the National Association of Scholars set out two years ago to learn how Confucius Institutes came to be planted on American campuses, how they operate, and how they influence their host institutions. Last April we released our report, “Outsourced to China: Confucius Institutes and Soft Power in American Higher Education.” The author, Rachelle Peterson, focused on 12 institutes in New Jersey and New York.

In her research, almost immediately she encountered a wall of secrecy. The agreements between the Hanban and the colleges were secret. The workings of the institutes were secret. The classrooms were off-limits. Of the few people connected to the institutes who were willing to speak at all, most insisted on off-the-record conversations remote from campus. This didn’t seem much like Alliance Française or the Goethe-Institut.

I don’t need to retell Rachelle’s story, which is easily accessible. The broad conclusions were that the institutes stifle academic freedom, censor teachers, engage in unlawful religious discrimination, disseminate Chinese propaganda, and violate norms of transparency.

The report received widespread attention and, nearly a year later, has become a subject of interest on Capitol Hill, from the FBI, and other government agencies. On February 13, FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the FBI had been watching Confucius Institutes “for a while.”

When we began our study of the institutes, we encountered bland refusals to talk, obfuscation, and threats. We had to use Freedom of Information requests to obtain copies of the agreements between public universities and the Hanban, and we learned that the official Hanban versions of the documents differed on key points. American academic administrators turned out to be every bit as guarded as the institutes’ own directors. The reason soon became clear.

First, colleges receive substantial financial support for hosting the institutes. Second, key academic administrators find themselves suddenly in demand as speakers in China. Third, the administrators discover that China tightly controls the number of Chinese students permitted to enroll at a particular American college. And fourth, China frequently offers the additional enticement to the college of opening an overseas program in China.

Confucius Institutes, in short, become the first thread of a silk cocoon. For a relatively modest price, the Chinese government gains enormous influence over major American colleges and universities. And it gets privileged access to American campuses, from which it exercises other kinds of influence.

It is no wonder that Sen. Marco Rubio, of Florida, in February called on four colleges (and one high school) in his state to end their agreements with the Confucius Institutes headquarters. The University of West Florida promptly announced that it would not renew its Confucius Institute contract. Rubio cited the decision by the University of Chicago in 2014 to cut off negotiations to renew its contract with its Confucius Institute. Chicago received a strong push from faculty members, who were roused to action by the eminent anthropology professor Marshall Sahlins.

Since then a handful of other colleges have thought twice about this particular foreign entanglement. Pennsylvania State University followed the University of Chicago almost immediately. In January the University of Texas at Austin changed its mind about accepting funding from another Chinese organization, the China-United States Exchange Foundation. Austin’s thinking was clarified by a letter from Senator Ted Cruz, of Texas, who warned that having such a partner might compromise the university.

China itself may be reassessing its strategy of attempting to influence America by means of these campus-based institutes. Xinhua News, China’s official press agency, has reported a program to “reform” the Confucius Institutes in light of challenges and Westerners’ lamentable tendency to misconstrue what the institutes do. Rachelle Peterson connected these promised reforms to declarations by Ma Jianfei, a deputy executive of the Confucius Institute headquarters, and by a key group presided over by President Xi Jinping, which suggest that reform in this case will mean redoubled secrecy and tighter state control.

Universities since the Middle Ages have drawn students and scholars across the borders of kingdoms, languages, and cultures. The leading American scholars of the 19th century often benefited from studying in Europe, and the United States has become a destination for scholars and students from around the world. These are essential strengths of American higher education.

That said, American higher education is still American higher education. It has an obligation to uphold the rule of law and other bedrock principles of a free society. When an American college entangles itself in a relationship with an adversarial foreign power, those principles can be threatened.

In the case of Confucius Institutes, we’ve moved beyond threats to serious compromises. The best answer to this situation is for the federal government to clarify the choices:

• If American colleges want to take funding from China for Confucius Institute courses in Chinese language and culture, they ought to do without the equivalent U.S. funding, especially in Title VI programs, which provide foreign-language and area-studies education.
• The Higher Education Act should be amended to require greater financial transparency when it comes to gifts and payments from foreign entities.
• The exemption of Confucius Institutes and the Hanban from the Foreign Agents Registration Act should be eliminated.

American scholars who say or write anything critical of China’s political regime should not have to look over their shoulders at Confucius Institute personnel or wonder if their own college will impede their research in the spirit of keeping up amicable relations with the Hanban.

Colleges in the United States may have been initially attracted to these institutes because they appeared to be a wholesome form of cultural outreach. But that proved to be an illusion. We now know they operate under a veil of secrecy in which they engage in dubious activities.

China’s response to these criticisms has been to mock them — in the words of China’s Global Times — as “a form of hysterical American nationalism.” The official Chinese defense of the Confucius Institutes is that American critics are exaggerating cultural differences and demonstrating their own lack of confidence in dealing with a “strategic competitor.”

Those are taunts, not answers, and they underscore the aggressive character of the Confucius Institutes. American colleges can and should find better ways to introduce their students to Chinese culture.

Peter Wood is president of the National Association of Scholars.