Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    AI and Microcredentials
Sign In
News

‘Moving the Goalposts’: What You Need to Know About DeVos’s Closer Scrutiny of Foreign Gifts

By Lindsay Ellis and Dan Bauman February 13, 2020
Yale U.
Yale U.Andrew Cline, Alamy

Calling for more reporting of foreign gifts than is widely practiced, the U.S. Department of Education’s letters to Harvard and Yale Universities this week signaled a ratcheting up of scrutiny of relations between American campuses and Chinese entities.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Calling for more reporting of foreign gifts than is widely practiced, the U.S. Department of Education’s letters to Harvard and Yale Universities this week signaled a ratcheting up of scrutiny of relations between American campuses and Chinese entities.

In the two letters, each dated Tuesday, the department said Harvard and Yale may not have fully detailed their gifts and contracts with foreign entities as required by federal law. The cited provision requires universities to tell the Education Department about gifts from and contracts with foreign sources greater than $250,000.

But in the letters, the department appeared to urge a thorough accounting of all programs, activities, and people funded with money from foreign entities — no matter how small. The letters raised alarms that such an onerous requirement could discourage collaboration between American campuses and those abroad, and the targeting of Harvard and Yale showed a focus on high-profile institutions that could catch other campuses’ eyes.

The more we dig, the more we find that too many are underreporting or not reporting at all.

“To satisfy these requests in full, you would have to hire teams of at least 10 additional staff members working full time for a year,” said Robert Daly, director of the Wilson Center’s Kissinger Institute on China and the United States. “It is fair to ask if this is aimed at deterrence.”

The Education Department did not respond to a question from The Chronicle on whether it is asking for reports of all gifts, no matter the size. In an earlier letter, the department suggested that universities can track all money “at a very high level of granularity.”

The department, in a news release, said Yale may have omitted reports of at least $375 million in foreign gifts and contracts, citing its lack of reports for four recent years. In Harvard’s case, the department mentioned as concerning a statement made by the recently arrested chemistry-department chair regarding a lack of adequate university oversight for large donations.

“Unfortunately, the more we dig, the more we find that too many are underreporting or not reporting at all,” said Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos in a statement. “We will continue to hold colleges and universities accountable and work with them to ensure their reporting is full, accurate, and transparent, as required by the law.”

Representatives for Harvard and Yale confirmed that the universities received the letters, and each told The Chronicle that they are preparing responses. Yale’s said it submitted “all of the required reporting of foreign funding for the missing years” in November, when it was made aware of the oversight, and believes current disclosures are complete.

Tuesday’s letters are not the first that appear to call on colleges to report a wider scope of gifts and contracts. Over the summer, the agency and various education groups have communicated about the provision that requires reporting, with the department pledging to enforce the law. Since July 1, according to the education department, campuses have reported more than $6.5 billion in previously undisclosed foreign money, including $3.6 billion from 10 schools.

ADVERTISEMENT

In September, the department sent letters to the University of Maryland at College Park and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on similar themes as the Harvard and Yale letters. Each letter, for example, asked for all records of, about, and referencing gifts and contracts from or with foreign sources.

But the letters to Harvard and Yale go beyond what was asked of Maryland and MIT. For example, each of the four universities was asked to disclose records of, regarding, or referencing gifts and contracts with the People’s Republic of China, the government of Qatar, and two Chinese companies under scrutiny by American officials, Huawei Technologies and ZTE Corporation. Harvard and Yale were also asked to disclose records regarding Qatari nationals.

Alex Hontos, a partner at the law firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP who focuses on procurement law and contracting, called the breadth of the letters “astounding” and, because they call for information on all gifts and contracts, possibly inconsistent with the section of the law that requires reporting above the $250,000 benchmark. He raised questions about what more granular disclosure requirements could mean for donors’ preferences for anonymity.

His clients, some of which are universities grappling with research and engagement questions, are “searching for answers” on the scope of what might be required here. “People are really just looking for the lines, and there’s a sense that the goalposts are moving.”

‘Patently Unfair’

Over the last two years, Washington has increasingly focused on foreign giving to and contracts with American universities. The theory is that American campuses are increasingly dependent on money from abroad, but they have not created adequate controls that would lower the risk of undue influence or theft of intellectual property.

ADVERTISEMENT

So far, in response, universities have urged professors to disclose any and all conflicts of commitment and foreign funding. Here, it appears that the U.S. government is urging campuses to do just that, across all of their entities — a vast undertaking.

“This is the same issue,” Daly said, “at a macro scale.”

Colleges and the federal government have long struggled to fully execute the provision requiring transparency of foreign gifts. Two years after the passage of the 1992 Higher Education Act, which carried the disclosure statute, The Chronicle found exactly zero entries had been recorded within the registry of foriegn gifts and transactions.

Many of the justifications for nondisclosure at the time echo complaints made by the higher-education sector today. Some colleges at the time confessed to being unaware of the law’s mandate. Other institutions faulted the Department of Education for failing to provide adequate guidance on reporting requirements.

ADVERTISEMENT

Since then, subsequent Education Departments have been uninterested in exhaustively enforcing the law. Colleges disclosed information using diverging interpretations of their responsibilities under the law. For instance, the California Institute of Technology includes with every entry the name of the donor. None of the $1.1-billion in transaction entries for Harvard carry the names of its donors or business partners.

Certain laws provide the Education Department with the ability to fine or penalize institutions for inaccurately reporting information, including the omission of sexual-violence incidents from Clery Act reports. No such authorization is provided for collecting foreign-transaction data. The department can sue institutions in federal court to force compliance, but a spokesman did not return a request for comment on whether the government had exercised that option.

To a certain extent, the problem is one that is inherently focused on high-profile research universities. Fewer than 300 U.S. institutions say they get foreign money each year, according to the department, with most money going to about 50 big campuses. A Chronicle analysis of foreign donations found that gifts to just Harvard, MIT, the Johns Hopkins, Stanford, and Duke Universities collectively accounted for more than half of all of the $4.5 billion disclosed to the Department of Education since 2013.

Recent rhetoric from the Education Department showed skepticism of the use of foundations and foreign campuses by these institutions, calling these operations “financially opaque” and means to “generate revenue, including from foreign sources.” It called on campuses to report that revenue in a November letter.

ADVERTISEMENT

Harvard’s and Yale’s research in and about China has been “essential” to America’s understanding of China, and by extension, the nation’s security, Daly said.

To Hontos, the fact that the department pulled Harvard and Yale into the conversation showed an effort to get “maximum attention” and put “all institutions on notice.”

The language in the letters calling for reporting of all gifts could widen the scope of which campuses will be reporting future gifts.

“There is an interpretive question there — do they want literally every tuition dollar that came from a Canadian student?” said Hontos, the lawyer. “I don’t think that’s consistent with 117,” the section of the law in question.

ADVERTISEMENT

Academic groups have raised similar concerns. In a July letter, Terry W. Hartle, senior vice president of the American Council on Education, told the department that universities need more clarity about the requirements. The letter was on behalf of groups including the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities and the American Association of Community Colleges.

“It is patently unfair,” Hartle wrote, “to enforce requirements that do not exist in writing.”

Wider Questions

The department’s letter to Yale asked for a trove of documents, including a list of all foreign sites operated by Yale or an affiliated entity, and the auditing practices and nontuition revenue sources of those sites. It also asked for a list of all gifts and contracts from the Paul Tsai China Center at Yale’s law school, and from the Jackson Institute for Global Affairs.

Karen Peart, a Yale spokeswoman, said that the university respects the department’s requirements about reporting funding. “Yale takes very seriously the importance of ensuring that funding from foreign sources does not in any way compromise American interests.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Hontos urged universities to “operate in the reality they’re in,” even if they disagree with the current administration. “Whether it’s right or wrong, whether China presents a huge threat to academic institutions — in some ways it doesn’t matter,” he said.”

In recent months colleges have been grappling with exactly that. While urging disclosure and adherence to federal law, they have also issued strong statements supporting collaborations with international academics and campuses.

Like in the reporting of foreign gifts, many campus leaders have called for more clarity on other aspects of the issue of research security from the federal government.

For example, at a recent event on China hosted by the Center for Strategic & International Studies, Gregory Fenves, president of the University of Texas at Austin, said more collaboration was needed with agencies on how to do due diligence on foreign visitors.

“There is more that needs to be done, and every university can’t figure it out on its own,” he said. “We don’t have the resources or expertise.”

A version of this article appeared in the March 6, 2020, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Scholarship & Research International Leadership & Governance
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
Ellis_Lindsay.jpg
About the Author
Lindsay Ellis
Lindsay Ellis, a reporter at The Wall Street Journal, previously covered research universities, workplace issues, and other topics for The Chronicle.
Bauman_Dan.jpg
About the Author
Dan Bauman
Dan Bauman is a reporter who investigates and writes about all things data in higher education. Tweet him at @danbauman77, or email him at dan.bauman@chronicle.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Photo illustration showing Santa Ono seated, places small in the corner of a dark space
'Unrelentingly Sad'
Santa Ono Wanted a Presidency. He Became a Pariah.
Illustration of a rushing crowd carrying HSI letters
Seeking precedent
Funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions Is Discriminatory and Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Argues
Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through paper that is a photo of an idyllic liberal arts college campus on one side and money on the other
Finance
Small Colleges Are Banding Together Against a Higher Endowment Tax. This Is Why.
Pano Kanelos, founding president of the U. of Austin.
Q&A
One Year In, What Has ‘the Anti-Harvard’ University Accomplished?

From The Review

Photo- and type-based illustration depicting the acronym AAUP with the second A as the arrow of a compass and facing not north but southeast.
The Review | Essay
The Unraveling of the AAUP
By Matthew W. Finkin
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome propped on a stick attached to a string, like a trap.
The Review | Opinion
Colleges Can’t Trust the Federal Government. What Now?
By Brian Rosenberg
Illustration of an unequal sign in black on a white background
The Review | Essay
What Is Replacing DEI? Racism.
By Richard Amesbury

Upcoming Events

Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Warwick_Leadership_Javi.png
University Transformation: a Global Leadership Perspective
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin