Why colleges closed their Confucius Institutes
Political pressures and the potential loss of federal funding led colleges to close their Confucius Institutes, according to a new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. And while colleges sought new sources of financial support, many reported reductions in Chinese language, cultural, or educational programming after the Chinese-government-funded centers ceased operating.
The report, requested by Congress, tracks the demise of the institutes, 70 of which shut down between 2019 and 2022. Fewer than five remained in operation as of July, the agency, also known as the GAO, noted.
At one point, there were some 120 centers in the United States.
Seventy-four of the colleges that closed their Confucius Institutes responded to the GAO survey. Forty-five of them, or more than 60 percent, said concerns about jeopardizing federal funding contributed to “a great extent” to their decision. Congress, in defense-authorization bills for the 2019 and 2021 fiscal years, included language that first limited and then barred U.S. Department of Defense funds for research and other programs from going to institutions that host the centers.
Another 15 percent of respondents said the potential loss of or ineligibility for defense grants contributed to “some extent” to their closure. In addition, two of three colleges that had Confucius Institutes operating at the time of the GAO study but that were planning to close them cited loss of federal funds as a key factor.
The Defense Department has established a waiver program that would allow colleges to receive defense grants and continue operating their Confucius Institutes, provided they put in place certain guardrails to ensure academic freedom and full curricular and managerial control by the American institution.
As of May 2023, no college had applied for a waiver to remain eligible for defense funding under the 2021 prohibition, the report found.
Political pressures also played a critical part in colleges’ decisions: Forty-four respondents said pressure from the U.S. government or congressional or state representatives contributed to some or a great extent to closures. Several colleges told the GAO that their state governments had introduced or enacted legislation barring Confucius Institutes.
Ten colleges said reputational worries had a role in ending agreements to host the centers.
The centers have become political hot potatoes in recent years. Elected officials have raised alarms that they are being used for propaganda purposes by the Chinese government and that they could be used to collect intelligence, including proprietary information and intellectual property. The officials have also questioned whether American colleges have sufficient oversight of the centers and whether their presence on campuses could chill academic freedom.
While the FBI said it had not found “enough evidence” of criminal activity or malign foreign influence to prioritize Confucius Institutes as a national-security issue, it does have concerns that the Chinese government could use them as a soft-power tool, the report noted.
Respondents told the GAO that they had put in place policies prior to the centers’ closures in response to such apprehensions, such as requiring that all Confucius Institute activities comply with college policies on academic freedom, maintaining campus control over curriculum and operations, and protecting access to sensitive research. Most had employed multiple measures, the report said. The scrutiny of Confucius Institutes had led some colleges to increase their oversight over other foreign programs on campus.
Still, 80 percent of those surveyed said they were “not at all concerned” about espionage, intellectual-property theft, or other national-security threats tied to their Confucius Institutes. More than half said such fears played no role in closing the centers.
Two-thirds said they were not worried about undue Chinese-government influence related to the institutes.
The closures have affected their programming, colleges told the GAO. More than half said they had reduced Chinese cultural programs. Thirty respondents had fewer Chinese-language learning resources, 21 said there was a negative impact on Chinese education in local public schools, and 15 reported both. Other learning opportunities, such as study abroad, internships, or scholarships, were also affected.
Fourteen colleges said the closures had little impact on their campus or in the broader community.
To continue to support Chinese language and cultural programming, colleges turned to a variety of sources, including diverting internal funds and resources or drawing on federal grants for foreign-language instruction, such as the Department of Defense’s Language Flagship program.
A number of colleges said Taiwan was helping pay for language courses, cultural events, and academic exchanges. Taiwan has sought to establish its own Chinese-language centers on American campuses. And about 10 percent said they were continuing to work with the Chinese universities that had been their partners in the Confucius Institutes to offer such programming.
The Defense Department told the GAO it was in the process of identifying centers that meet the congressional definition of Confucius Institutes even if they are called by another name and will notify any colleges that host them of their ineligibility for federal funds.
