Walter Hutchens’ Blog

Because I’ve closely followed the development of foreign-sponsored higher ed. programs in China, I find especially interesting this NPR report on opposition to the development of engineering programs in Saudi Arabia sponsored by California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

The initial cohort of the program will be male only. Obviously, that would not be an acceptable policy for Cal Poly at home. But the institution will get almost $6 million dollars for its involvement in the deal, and the university administrator interviewed for the report argues that being in Saudi Arabia, even when conditions are not ideal (my characterization would be repugnant), is the best way to encourage change in Saudi Arabia. Critics both inside and outside the university dismiss this rationale, saying that Cal Poly shouldn’t sell out its values and could best contribute to change in Saudi Arabia in other ways (say by having more Saudi students come to the US and experience co-education and pluralism first hand).

These debates mirror the long-standing debates about economic engagement with China. As James Mann argues in his polemic The China Fantasy, from Nixon to now engadement with China has often been justified on the grounds that such engadement will eventually, somehow help China evolve from a Leninist political state into a more liberal regime. After 30 years, Mann argues, this is a patently empty argument; China continues to oppress dissent, censor free speech, suppress civil society, preclude judicial independence and allow only one political party to exercise power. Mann says politicians, business people, academics and policy analysts have, in effect, been wrong (and, he suggests, intentionally misled the public).

I don’t see any conspiracy to mislead the public by some aligned cabal of panda huggers, but it is clear China’s ruling party remains committed to keeping its grip on power and not becoming a liberal democracy. China has changed a lot in the last 30 years, but there has, indeed, been no political revolution. The regime still does a lot of nasty things, as chronicled last week by the US State Department’s annual human rights report, the depressing news out of Tibet and other readily-available compilations of horrors. Still, I think Mann understates the degree to which liberty has expanded in China over recent decades. It is a particular world view that makes political liberty alone the measure of freedom in a country. Of course I wish my friends in China could meaningfully vote, form associations without government approval, trust that judges are free of political interference (and corruption), worship in accord with their conscience and publish and read whatever they’d like. But I also know from villages to urban centers, hundreds of millions of people in China believe their liberty has expanded dramatically during the reform era.

Previously, the dan wei could be in charge of one’s entire career including not only job assignments but also where one lived, when one could marry, whether one could get medical care, travel abroad, send one’s children to school and so forth. Ration coupons for basic staples were tied to one’s dan wei and hukou, making internal migration nearly impossible. Now there are markets for labor, housing and other things that break up that kind of concentration of power. As someone quipped, for most people, the Party has been replaced by the party. Masses of PRC citizens have much more control over the lives than they did before economic reforms began. Thus, even while I hope for more liberalization in China, I also recognize that millions of Chinese citizens are living at a relative apogee of freedom (not just compared to the nadir of the Cultural Revolution as Mann argues, but even in a broader sweep of Chinese history). I think this underscores that economic liberty is part of freedom and should be considered a human right. China has, at least on this front, made remarkable progress. Moreover, while “social stability” is often invoked to cover political suppression in China, I think American adventures in Iraq have made it clear enough that voting and free speech alone do not provide the full package of conditions desirable for human life. Security and stability are also required for civil society to flourish. China, in other words has a point at some level: stability matters.

Thus, while the CCP’s political intransigence is indeed repugnant, ignoring the expansion of freedom in China over recent decades is just as delusional as thinking that the PRC is about to flower into a liberal democracy. The question is how can foreign powers best encourage continued liberalization in China. To me it seems clear continued, sometimes critical engagement is the most promising and realistic approach.

More specifically, with respect to foreign participation in higher education in China, I have not yet seen much commentary that focuses on the political or human rights aspects of such engagement. Most of the commentary has been about whether foreign universities can expect to succeed in China, not about whether they should even be trying to do so. Of course, China does not impose gender discrimination of the type Cal Poly encountered in Saudi Arabia. But undeniably China does in some cases abuse human rights. Undeniably China limits freedom in ways most “free world” citizens find repugnant. Thus, I would expect, sooner or later, to see criticism of foreign-sponsored higher education programs in China. Should a US university offer an undergraduate degree, MBA or graduate degree in law in a country where academic freedom does not, strictly speaking, exist? (Today various US universities do offer all those degrees in China). Perhaps another line of attack could come from economic nationalists. They might query whether it is in the interest of the people of a US state to expend tax dollars or other resources training competitors overseas, particularly when China has such an enormous trade surplus with the US (and, according to some, “manipulates” its currency for trade advantages).

There may be good retorts to these arguments, but the point is that, sooner or later, the debate over the appropriateness of foreign participation in China’s higher education sector will flare up, just as it has with respect to this program in Saudi Arabia.

—————
Addendum: I found some good comments on the Cal Poly program here, and the LA Times covered the controversy here.