Latitudes

Defense Department releases waiver plan for colleges with Confucius Institutes

Colleges with Confucius Institutes will now be able to get a waiver that would allow them to host the Chinese-government-funded language and culture centers while still receiving U.S. Department of Defense grants.

The Defense Department, late last month, quietly adopted much of the waiver criteria proposed by a special study committee convened by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. But the big question is: Will any colleges actually apply for one?

The U.S. Congress included a prohibition against defense spending going to institutions that house the controversial Chinese cultural centers in a 2021 defense-authorization bill. Although the legislation did contain a provision allowing for a waiver process, many college leaders did not wait for such a policy to be developed, opting to shutter their Confucius Institutes rather than potentially jeopardize an important source of federal research grants.

In their heyday, there were about 120 Confucius Institutes in the United States. Today, there are just seven active centers on American campuses, with most of the closures happening in the past five years. (The 2021 legislation was preceded by a less far-reaching restriction in 2019 on certain types of defense spending.)

As a result, there are only a handful of colleges that could currently qualify for a waiver. Of the seven active centers, only two are at institutions that receive defense research grants. And the likelihood of opening new Confucius Institutes or restarting those that were closed is uncertain — given the continuing scrutiny of academic ties to China, doing so may be a political hot potato.

In fact, Congress last year approved a similar ban on National Science Foundation funds going to colleges that host the centers.

Apart from broader fears about Chinese influence on American campuses, policymakers have objected to the structure of some Confucius Institutes, criticizing colleges for giving up too much control over curriculum and hiring to their Chinese partners and for doing too little to ensure academic freedom in agreements.

The new waiver criteria, which hew closely to suggested guidelines proposed in January by the National Academies working group, attempt to deal directly with many of those concerns. As part of the application process, colleges must document that they have financial and managerial control over the centers, including:

• The host college must conduct an annual review of the institute’s budget, personnel, and operations.
  
• The center must meet the same policies and procedures that other students and faculty and staff members on campus are subject to, including guarantees of academic freedom and freedom of expression.
  
• Staff members at the Confucius Institute must be employees of the host institution or visiting scholars.
  
• Curriculum and syllabi must be approved through the faculty-governance process.
  
• No contract or agreement can contain language requiring or permitting the application of foreign law on an American campus.

In addition, colleges must demonstrate that they have research-security measures in place, including cybersecurity protections.

The waivers do not have an expiration date, but any change in a college’s Confucius Institute agreement would prompt a review. Colleges that apply for an exemption by June 1 should receive a decision by September 1, the Defense Department guidance said.

Clarification to Education Dept. guidance brings relief to international educators

International-education groups are cheering a decision by the U.S. Department of Education to exclude study-abroad providers and international-student recruiters from new regulatory guidance that imposes tougher oversight of third-party providers.

The guidance would have, among other things, defined as “third-party servicers” entities that provide “any percentage” of educational and instructional content, and would have prohibited colleges from working with foreign providers or those located overseas on programs eligible for Title IV federal student aid. Many feared that the sweeping language could have a disastrous impact on international education, cutting American colleges off from working with key foreign partners.

In an April 11 blog post, the Education Department sought to clarify the guidance, singling out several activities it said would not constitute third-party relationships under the rules. First on the list: study-abroad programs and recruitment of foreign students not eligible for federal financial aid.

The department said it had received hundreds of comments about the guidance’s potential impact on such activities.

“Relief” is how Brian Whalen characterized the response among colleges that use outside recruitment agents as part of their international-enrollment strategies.

The Education Department’s statement “reaffirms that institution educational recruitment-agency partnerships are an important way that the U.S. maintains its place as the top host country for international education,” said Whalen, executive director of the American International Recruitment Council, a membership and standards-setting organization for international-recruitment agencies and the American colleges that use them.

Melissa A. Torres, president of the Forum on Education Abroad, said she was grateful for how quickly her group’s members, which include American and overseas colleges and independent study-abroad programs, stepped up to lobby for changes to the guidance. “Thank you to everyone who showed up, listened, took action, sent letters, shared comments, and showed support to help colleagues — and future students — with speed and determination,” she wrote in an email. “I am honored to advocate for and work alongside them.”

Fanta Aw, executive director of NAFSA: Association of International Educators, called the clarification “incredibly meaningful,” noting that overseas partnerships are the “lifeblood” of most international-education programming.

But in a statement, Aw said she continues to have concerns about the broad language of the regulatory guidance. By defining entities related to educational programming, student retention, or logistical or technical support as third-party providers even when they do not involve the administration of Title IV funds, the Education Department could still “stifle or disrupt” the ability of students, scholars, and professors to study, earn a degree, intern, and conduct research at institutions abroad, either virtually or in person, she said.

Around the globe

Lawmakers in Florida have advanced a pair of bills that prohibit the state’s public colleges from accepting funds or forming academic partnerships with universities, governments, or other entities in seven “countries of concern,” China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela.

Two-thirds of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center said China and the United States could cooperate on student exchanges, despite generally worsening opinion of China and of collaboration between the two countries. The relatively positive view of Sino-American student exchanges stands in contrast to a 2021 Pew survey, in which more than half of respondents favored limits on Chinese students in the United States.

Having better information about scholarships, career outcomes, and overall institutional support might have influenced international graduate students in their choice of college, according to new findings.

A report by a science advisory group to the National Science Foundation said that while threats to research security from foreign governments do exist, they are often confused with issues of “research integrity,” such as violations of professional values and codes of conduct.

One in five programs in “unwanted” fields of study at Chinese universities could be closed as part of a government effort to revamp disciplinary offerings to more closely match economic needs and national priorities.

The number of academics leaving Turkey has increased since 2015, leading to concerns that tightening government control of the country’s universities could lead to brain drain.

Cambridge University Press is dropping open-access fees for scholars in more than 100 countries in the Global South as part of an effort to reduce financial barriers to publishing open-access research in countries where research funding is scarce.

Scientists from countries in Africa, Asia, and South America are underrepresented on the editorial boards of academic journals, according to a paper examining issues of equity and access for nonwhite researchers.

Mark your calendars! Join The Chronicle on May 2, at 2 p.m. ET, for a virtual forum on the changing field of international education. While the event is free, registration is required.

Happy to be back at the keyboard after a week away. Shockingly, I managed to stay largely offline during vacation — what’d I miss? You can send your news tips, feedback, and ideas for future reporting to me at karin.fischer@chronicle.com. I’m also online on Twitter or LinkedIn. If you like this newsletter, please share it with colleagues and friends. They can sign up here.