UK universities told they are ‘soft touch’ for autocrats

Western university chiefs defended themselves against accusations levelled at them by a former British government minister, of being naïve, arrogant and greedy in their approach to the internationalisation of higher education.

Graham Stuart, who was parliamentary under-secretary at the United Kingdom’s Department for International Trade until last year, said UK universities were seen by many as a “soft touch” for interference by autocratic states and that their research priorities are open to being dictated by totalitarian regimes.

He made the allegations in a student union-style debating session, deliberately designed to be provocative, at this year’s International Higher Education Forum (IHEF) organised by Universities UK International.

“Events of the past few weeks show why naivety and weakness in the face of totalitarian states can have real world consequences,” said the ex-government minister.

Chinese influence on UK campuses

He claimed that “financial dependence on foreign students makes courage a rare commodity” and told the conference session focusing on security and risk in international higher education that he was alarmed at the “extent of Chinese influence on UK campuses”.

Stuart said: “It is hardly surprising when Chinese students make up 29% of international students [in the UK] and 10% of all fee income” and UK university collaboration with China on research papers has risen from 1% to 11% in the past two decades.

But it was his warning that academic freedom was at risk from Confucius Institutes, which have the declared aim of promoting and teaching Chinese culture and language, that sparked one of the firmest rebukes from a panel of Western university chiefs invited to respond to Stuart’s allegations.

Professor Peter Mathieson, principal and vice-chancellor at the University of Edinburgh, said he agreed with much of Stuart’s opening argument that universities had been “a soft touch for interference”, but that was changing as Universities UK International and organisations such as the Russell Group of research-intensive universities build up their defences against cyber and other threats.

University funding

However, to allegations that universities were guilty of “arrogance and greed” over internationalisation, Mathieson said those charges could be levelled against other sectors of society and suggested: “If the government would like to reduce universities’ dependence on international students, there is a very simple solution: they can properly fund universities and properly fund research in both Scotland and England.”

He said it was a fact that universities had very large numbers of Chinese students on their campuses, but he found them “hard-working, smart and enjoyable young people” to have around and that it was “frankly nonsense” to suggest that having a Confucius Institute on his Edinburgh campus meant that the government in Beijing was dictating any aspect of his university’s policy.

Having seen at close range how China is building hospitals, roads and airports while he was teaching in Uganda, Mathieson accepted that the Chinese government is “highly strategic and clever” in building its influence in East Africa and other parts of the world.

“But I don’t accept that I am naïve or stupid in having a Confucius Institute. I’m pleased there was one here when I arrived. It provides excellent Chinese language teaching for the university and to the citizens of Edinburgh. The idea that I am allowing my university to be controlled by Beijing is facetious.”

On the question of risk, Mathieson said: “Whilst the government is concerned about security, my impression is that security agencies don’t want us to stop taking risks; they want us to understand the risks.”

Rebuilding trust in post-conflict situations

Professor Thomas Hofmann, president of the Technical University of Munich, Germany, widened the debate to explain why he believed global universities had a key role in rebuilding trust in post-conflict situations.

He told delegates to the #IHEF22 conference that his university has 600 Russian students and when talking to them about the invasion of Ukraine they told him they liked being in Munich and understanding the European way of thinking.

“They say they will not return to their own country as long as the president [Putin] is there. It is exactly why we need to bring these young people into our system and educate them to understand the benefits.

“It is the only way, so that when they return, they can change the way of thinking.”

Hofmann said the world faces challenges that are so huge, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, that cross-border and cross-continental cooperation was vital and suggested that when the Russia-Ukraine conflict comes to an end, it will “probably be science that is the first player in the game to rebuild trust”.

He described this as “the unique position universities are in by providing a non-political platform of open discussion, and [they] can listen to and take up different perspectives”.

Warnings against ‘closed systems’

Turning to cooperation with countries with different political systems, he warned against “having a closed system with closed universities disconnected with the rest of the world” and said: “The only opportunity to change such a system is by educating the next generation in an open-minded globally orientated way. That’s the reason we educate students from all countries and bring them to our system of liberties, if you want to put it that way.”

Equally important was the German emphasis on encouraging outward student mobility, said Hofmann. “Our students spread out to every place in the world and their visions build bridges.”

Paul Davidson, president of Universities Canada, said the debate was familiar to ongoing discussions in Canada about international cooperation with countries like China and complained about the lack of consistent guidance from government.

“You can go to five different windows of government in Canada and get five different answers on what the appropriate course of action might be.

“And while we have to confirm and re-affirm the value of academic freedom, I find it ironic that a number of governments around the world say ‘yes, we believe in freedom, but we are going to tell you where you may not work’,” he said.

The debate ended with a meeting of minds on the issue of guidance being better than instruction, with even Stuart agreeing that “an international one-stop shop” should be established to encourage “a common understanding across the network of liberty” aimed at managing risk and protecting academic freedom.

Davidson said such a collaborative “joined-up” approach should start by involving all G7 countries to achieve a common understanding, even if different countries take different approaches.

Nic Mitchell is a UK-based freelance journalist and PR consultant specialising in European and international higher education. He blogs at www.delacourcommunications.com.