You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
Recent events just highlight how complicated this internationalization thing is. Crossing cultural and political boundaries does not necessarily lead to greater understanding and respect as we would like. Rather, these endeavors can underscore just how different our perspectives, values, and objectives are. Wellesley College’s wrestle with Peking University over “differing notions of academic freedom” and the recent closings of Confucius Institutes at the University of Chicago and Penn State University highlight the challenges inherent in international cooperation.
Wellesley College’s collaboration with Peking University was near collapse when a group of faculty members suggested that the partnership should be reconsidered in light of the controversy brewing over Prof. Xia Yeliang’s status at the Chinese University. Prof. Xia’s appointment at Peking University was in doubt due to his persistent reproaches of the Chinese government. In 2008, Prof. Xia had signed Charter 08, a petition calling for democratic freedoms and human rights in China and had published criticisms of the inclination of the Chinese government towards censorship. Not surprisingly, his activities attracted the attention of Peking University’s administrators and cast a shadow over his future there. Yet the disagreement was not limited to Wellesley’s view of academic freedom bumping up against Chinese government prerogative. The challenge to Prof. Xia’s freedoms also sparked debate and division within the Wellesley campus, underscoring the dilemmas of international engagement. Wellesley’s president, H. Kim Bottomly advised, “I believe it is important not to close doors, especially when it involves the exchange of ideas with other universities and with other countries—an exchange that is more important than ever.” But what does this mean exactly? Is President Bottomly suggesting that through "the exchange of ideas," that the Chinese government might embrace American notions of academic freedom? That seems a bit naïve. Or do her comments reflect a willingness to subjugate US academic values for the sake of a partnership that will produce unspecified benefits? It isn’t at all clear.
The Confucius Institutes present a similar dilemma. They provide foreign campuses with personnel for language instruction and cultural activities but only permit programming and discussion that avoid politically sensitive subjects. To what extent does this impose censorship on American curriculum? If universities wish to encourage the study of Mandarin and to increase exposure to Chinese culture should they welcome the Confucius Institute and accept the limitations placed on their activities by the Hanban, Confucius Institute’s headquarters in Beijing? The University of Chicago and Penn State have said, “No.”
These quandaries are not limited to China by a lot. Remember Alan Shadrake? Shadrake, a British journalist, was jailed before trial for publishing a book criticizing Singapore’s justice system, provoking controversy on the Yale campus and putting into question their collaboration with the National University of Singapore. And then there is a long list of practices in the courts of the United Arab Emirates in regard to gay rights, women’s rights, etc. that conflict directly with values held by the many academic communities that have built campuses there.
It is too easy to see internationalization as an “all to the good” kind of venture; however crossing cultural and political boundaries invariably obliges parties on both sides to confront conflicting values and policies. It is naïve to assume that contact and dialog will resolve these conflicts—they simply have to be recognized. Universities pursuing international partnerships and other initiatives will have to do some serious soul searching and be clear about the benefits hoped for and the compromises that will have to be made. They will also have to be honest and transparent about whether these ventures are intended to model certain academic values in the hope that others will find them attractive and imitate them, whether the intention is actually to impose academic values because one is convinced of their absolute “goodness,” or whether the institution is willing to capitulate to others by ignoring practices that contradict its own values in order to enhance its international profile, or worse, to pursue revenue.
