Confucius Institutes compromise academic freedom, defy Western norms of transparency, and are inappropriate on college campuses.

Research summary by Lisa Evans Rockwell

I’ve been waiting for this Investigation to drop! How BAD do YOU think the infiltration of China into our school system is? It’s beyond anything you could fathom! And not surprisingly, it ramped up in 2010 under Obama.

Here are a few Highlights into this nightmare:
👉1) In the last 15 years, the Chinese government has opened over 100 Confucius Institutes on college and university campuses in the United States. While there are currently more than 500 Confucius Institutes worldwide, the United States has more Confucius Institutes than any other country. **See list at end of article** Recently, ten U.S. colleges and universities have decided to close Confucius Institutes.
👉2) The Chinese government also funds teachers for Confucius Classrooms in the United States, which teach Chinese language and culture in kindergarten through 12th grade schools. There are over 1,000 Confucius Classrooms worldwide and more than 500 in the United States. Expanding the Confucius Classroom program is a priority for the Chinese government. A document obtained by the Subcommittee details a sophisticated plan to expand Confucius Classrooms by seeking the “top-down policy support from the state government, legislative and educational institutions, with a particular emphasis on access to the support from school district superintendents and principals.”
👉3) U.S. government officials have expressed concerns about Confucius Institutes. FBI Director Chris Wray testified that the FBI is “watching warily” Confucius Institutes and “in certain instances have developed appropriate investigative steps.” Bill Priestap, the FBI’s Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division, testified that Confucius Institutes “are not strictly a cultural institute [and that] they’re ultimately beholden to the Chinese government.”
👉4) The Chinese government controls nearly every aspect of Confucius Institutes at U.S. schools. Confucius Institutes report to the Chinese government’s Ministry of Education Office of Chinese Language Council International, known as “Hanban.” Confucius Institutes are funded, controlled, and mostly staffed by Hanban to present Chinese-government approved programming to students at U.S. schools. Hanban approves each Confucius Institutes’ annual budget and has veto authority over events and speakers.
👉5) Hanban provides no information to U.S. schools on how candidates for Chinese director and teacher positions at Confucius Institutes are screened or selected in China. U.S. Schools told the Subcommittee they did not know how Hanban selects the candidates they must choose when filling the Chinese director and teacher positions at Confucius Institutes, but were generally aware of an English proficiency test and psychological exam. Nor did U.S. schools know if the Chinese directors and teachers would meet the U.S. schools’ hiring standards.
👉6) Chinese directors and teachers at Confucius Institutes pledge to protect Chinese national interests. The Subcommittee obtained a contract between Chinese teachers and Hanban that requires Chinese instructors at U.S. schools to “conscientiously safeguard national interests” and terminates if the Chinese instructors “violate Chinese law” or “engage in activities detrimental to national interests.”
👉7) Some U.S. schools’ contracts with Hanban include non-disclosure provisions and require adherence to both U.S. and Chinese law. Some contracts reviewed by the Subcommittee included provisions that prevent public disclosure of the contract and a provision that both Chinese and U.S. law applies at the Confucius Institute at the U.S. school. When one U.S. school refused to include a provision requiring adherence to Chinese law, Hanban officials cancelled the entire contract.
👉8) Some Hanban contracts include a clause requiring a U.S. school to pay back Hanban funds for early termination of the Confucius Institute. This provision creates a disincentive for the U.S. school to terminate an agreement early if the school decides it no longer wants to host a Confucius Institute. The typical length of a contract between a U.S. school and Hanban is five years.
👉9) U.S. school officials’ impressions of Hanban’s control of Confucius Institutes varied. Some U.S. school officials, administrators, and instructors told the Subcommittee that they had concerns about the Chinese government’s control and influence over Confucius Institute planning and programming. Government Accountability Office investigators interviewed several U.S. school officials who “expressed concerns that hosting a Confucius Institute could limit events or activities critical of China—including events at the Confucius Institute and elsewhere on campus.” Other U.S. school administrators and American directors reported they had no concerns about academic freedom or undue Chinese influence.
👉10) The State Department does not collect information on the Exchange Visa Program (or “J-1 visa”) related to Confucius Institutes or Hanban. The State Department told the Subcommittee that when a Chinese national applies for a J-1 visa, the Department does not record if that individual is associated with a Confucius Institute. As such, the State Department does not know the number of Chinese nationals in the United States associated with the Confucius Institute program. This gap affects the State Department’s ability to effectively ensure proper visa use.
👉11) Since 2017, the State Department issued four Letters of Concern to U.S. schools for inappropriately using J-1 visas related to Confucius Institutes. The State Department revoked 32 visas for Confucius Institute exchange visitors following reviews at two of the schools that received letters. At both of these schools, Chinese nationals asserted they were in the United States conducting research when they were actually teaching at K−12 schools. When State Department officials interviewed officials and staff at one school, they found evidence of efforts to deceive them and determined the Confucius Institute’s Chinese co-director “conducted rehearsal interviews with the exchange visitors to practice discussing their research topics in advance of [State’s] review.”
👉12) The State Department conducted two field site reviews of Confucius Institutes in 2018 in response to visa violations discovered during a field site review. The State Department also issued a reminder to U.S. school sponsors to review guidance on the proper use of J-1 visas for Confucius Institutes. The State Department plans to conduct four field site reviews in 2019.
👉13) Since 2006, Hanban has provided more than $158 million to more than 100 U.S. schools for Confucius Institutes. Those U.S. schools provided the Subcommittee with financial data detailing all payments received from Hanban. Hanban states it spent more than $2 billion on Confucius Institutes worldwide from 2008 to 2016; starting in 2017, it no longer reports spending on the program.
👉14) U.S. schools failed to comply with statutory requirements to report foreign gifts to the Department of Education. Current law requires all post-secondary schools to biannually report funding provided by a foreign entity valued at more than $250,000. Nearly seventy percent of U.S. schools with a Confucius Institute that received more than $250,000 in one year failed to properly report that information to the Department of Education.
👉15) The Department of Education does not conduct regular oversight of U.S. schools’ compliance with required foreign gift reporting. The Department of Education maintains a database detailing the reporting of foreign gifts provided to U.S. schools, but relies solely on the U.S. schools to self-report gifts.
👉16) The Department of Education has failed to update U.S. school reporting requirements. The Department of Education has not issued guidance on foreign gift reporting by post-secondary schools since 2004. As a result, U.S. schools told the Subcommittee the reporting requirements were
unclear and confusing. They also said the Department of Education website used to receive gift reports was dated and difficult to use.
🚨👉17) The State Department created the American Cultural Center (“ACC”) program in 2010 to partner U.S. schools with a Chinese school. The State Department awarded $5.1 million in grant funds through the program for U.S. schools to create a space on the campus of a Chinese partner school. The ACC would host events and lectures to promote American culture.
👉18) The Chinese government fails to provide appropriate reciprocity for U.S. officials and educators in China. The State Department has documented at least 80 examples of Chinese interference with American public diplomacy efforts from January 2016 to July 2018. Chinese officials routinely cancelled events at ACCs that involved U.S. embassy officials. In other instances, the host Chinese school would not allow State Department officials to attend events at the ACC, even when they applied for admission weeks in advance.
👉19) The State Department Inspector General found that the American Cultural Center Program was “largely ineffective” in its mission due to Chinese interference. The State Department responded that “[t]he Embassy agrees that there are concerns related to the stability of specific Centers due to active interference by the Chinese government as well as limitations in visiting individual centers.”
👉20) The Chinese government prevented at least seven American Cultural Centers from ever opening. The U.S. schools cited “politics” and having to secure the permission of either the Chinese Communist Party or local provincial government as reasons for failing to open an American Cultural Center.
👉21) One U.S. school official told the Subcommittee that Chinese police officials detained and questioned her about her involvement with the American Cultural Center program. She further explained that when she later told a colleague about the questioning, her colleague was not surprised and told her the Chinese police routinely question Americans in this manner. The colleague concluded that she was now “part of the club.”
👉22) U.S. schools operating in China may self-censor events and programming as part of the State Department’s American Cultural Center program. For example, one U.S. school told the Subcommittee that they would never even propose to hold an event on Tibet or Taiwan. That same U.S. school said they successfully hosted programs in China, but that the school did not want to “promote American culture too much.”

READ THE ENTIRE 96 PAGE REPORT HERE: LINK

A second report on Confucius Institutes came out this week, this one from the Government Accountability Office, featuring a review of 90 memoranda of understanding that American colleges and universities signed with the Chinese government in order to operate Confucius Institutes.

The GAO report finds that although Confucius Institute agreements varied by school, most were kept confidential, and two-thirds explicitly required adherence to the Confucius Institute Constitution and Bylaws, which itself required adherence to Chinese law.

The third report comes from the U.K. Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.  The Commission invited National Association of Scholars (NAS) Policy Director Rachelle Peterson to submit written testimony, and she is quoted throughout the Commission’s report.

The Commission’s 19-page report expresses alarm that Confucius Institutes, unlike their Western counterparts, “are embedded within universities,” where they can freeride on the university’s prestige and credibility. The Commission also raises concern that Confucius Institutes may function as “an arm of Chinese ‘soft power’ and propaganda, aimed at promoting the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)’s propaganda and stifling its critics around the world.” LINK

****************************************

AAUP Rebukes Colleges for Chinese Institutes

2014 ChinaDigitalTimes article on Confucius Institute — The American Association of University Professors issued a public call for universities in the US to either terminate long-controversial Confucius Institutes, or to renegotiate contracts with the Chinese government in a way that would safeguard academic freedom and promote transparency. The Chronicle of Higher Education reports:

The dedication of the Colorado State University Confucius Institute, April 12, 2013

List of Confucius Institutes in US College and School Districts LINK

  • University of Alaska Anchorage
  • Troy University
  • Auburn University at Montgomery
  • Alabama A&M University
  • University of Central Arkansas
  • Arizona State University
  • University of Arizona
  • San Francisco State University
  • University of California, Los Angeles
  • University of California, Davis
  • San Diego State University
  • Stanford University
  • California State University, Long Beach
  • University of California, Santa Barbara
  • Community College of Denver
  • Colorado State University
  • Central Connecticut State University
  • George Washington University
  • University of Delaware
  • Miami Dade College
  • University of North Florida
  • Emory University
  • Kennesaw State University
  • Georgia Regents University
  • Wesleyan College
  • Georgia State University
  • Savannah State University
  • University of Hawaii at Manoa
  • University of Iowa
  • University of Idaho
  • Purdue University
  • Valparaiso University
  • University of Indianapolis
  • University of Kansas
  • Kansas State University
  • West Kentucky University
  • University of Kentucky
  • Xavier University of Louisiana
  • University of Massachusetts Boston
  • Tufts University
  • University of Maryland
  • University of Southern Maine
  • Michigan State University
  • Wayne State University
  • University of Michigan
  • Western Michigan University
  • University of Minnesota
  • St. Cloud State University
  • University of Missouri
  • Webster University
  • University of Montana
  • North Carolina State University
  • University of North Carolina Charlotte
  • University of Nebraska Lincoln
  • University of New Hampshire
  • Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
  • New Jersey City University
  • New Mexico State University
  • Pace University
  • Alfred University
  • Stony Brook University
  • State University of New York Albany
  • State College of Optometry, State University of New York
  • State University of New York Global Center
  • Columbia University
  • State University of New York at Buffalo
  • Binghamton University
  • Baruch University
  • Miami University
  • University of Akron
  • Cleveland State University
  • University of Toledo
  • University of Oklahoma
  • Portland State University
  • University of Oregon
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • Temple University
  • Bryant University
  • University of Rhode Island
  • University of South Carolina
  • Presbyterian College
  • Northern State University
  • University of Memphis
  • Middle Tennessee University
  • University of Tennessee
  • Texas Southern University
  • University of Texas at Dallas
  • University of Texas at San Antonio
  • University of Utah
  • Southern Utah University
  • College of William & Mary
  • Old Dominion University
  • George Mason University
  • University of Washington /Seattle Public Schools
  • University of Wisconsin Platteville
  • West Virginia University
  • China Institute
  • Broward County Public Schools
  • Chicago Public Schools
  • Clark County School District
  • East Central Ohio Educational Service Center
  • Houston Independent School District
  • Davis School District