U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–248PDF 2015

IS ACADEMIC FREEDOM THREATENED BY CHINA’S

INFLUENCE ON U.S. UNIVERSITIES?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 25, 2015

Serial No. 114–87

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Jeffrey S. Lehman, vice chancellor, New York University-Shanghai ........... 10

Ms. Susan V. Lawrence, Specialist in Asian Affairs, Congressional Research 

Service ................................................................................................................... 23

Mr. Robert Daly, director, Kissinger Institute on China and the U.S., Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars ................................................... 32

Mirta M. Martin, Ph.D., president, Fort Hays State University ......................... 43

Ms. Yaxue Cao, founder and editor, China Change .............................................. 61

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Jeffrey S. Lehman: Prepared statement ......................................................... 14

Ms. Susan V. Lawrence: Prepared statement ....................................................... 26

Mr. Robert Daly: Prepared statement .................................................................... 36

Mirta M. Martin, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ....................................................... 47

Ms. Yaxue Cao: Prepared statement ...................................................................... 64

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 98

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 99

The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California: Letter submitted for the record ......................................... 100

Mr. Jeffrey S. Lehman: Appendices to testimony ................................................. 102

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations: Statement 

of Dr. Dawood Farahi .......................................................................................... 106

(1)

IS ACADEMIC FREEDOM THREATENED BY 

CHINA’S INFLUENCE ON U.S. UNIVERSITIES? 

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will come to order. 

And I want to welcome all of our very distinguished panelists 

and guests to this hearing this afternoon. 

And I would like to begin with an opening statement, and then 

I will yield to my two distinguished colleagues if they would like 

to make any opening statements. 

This hearing is the second in a series probing the question of 

whether maintaining access to China’s lucrative education market 

undermines the very values that make American universities great, 

including academic freedom. 

This hearing is timely for three reasons: The growing number of 

satellite or branch campuses started by the U.S. universities in 

China; the record numbers of Chinese students, 275,000 estimated, 

enrolling in U.S. universities and colleges in China in each year, 

bringing with them nearly $10 million a year in tuition and other 

spending; and the recent efforts by the Communist Party of China 

to regain ideological control over universities and academic research. 

Official Chinese Government decrees prohibit teaching and research in seven areas, the so-called seven taboos or seven silences, 

including universal values, press freedom, civil society, citizen 

rights, criticism of the party’s past neo-liberal economics, and the 

independence of the judiciary. All of these so-called seven taboos 

are criticized as Western values, which begs a very significant and 

important question: Are U.S. colleges and universities compromising their images as bastions of free inquiry and academic freedom in exchange for China’s education dollars? 

Some may defend concessions made as the cost of doing business 

in an authoritarian country or dictatorship, such as in China. 

Maybe a university decides that it won’t offer a class on human 

rights in China. Maybe they won’t invite a prominent dissident, a 

fellow, or visiting lecturer. Maybe they won’t protest when a proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:25 Sep 29, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\062515\95248 SHIRL
2

fessor is denied a visa because of his or her work that is critical 

of a dictatorship. Maybe such compromises are rationalized as necessary to not offend a major donor or for the greater good of maintaining access. 

If U.S. universities are only offering Chinese students and faculty a different name on their diploma or paycheck, is it worth the 

cost and the compromises and the concessions? 

Perry Link, the eminent China scholar, argued during our last 

hearing in this room just a few months ago that the slow drip of 

self-censorship is the most pernicious threat to academic freedom, 

and it undermines both the recognized brands of our major universities as well as their credibility. 

Self-censorship may be the reason why NYU terminated the fellowship of a world-class human rights activist and hero, Chen 

Guangcheng. As NYU faculty said in their letter to the board of 

trustees, the circumstances surrounding the launch of an NYU satellite campus in Shanghai and the ending of Chen’s residence created a ‘‘public perception, accurate or otherwise, that NYU made 

commitments in order to operate in China.’’ Again, begs another 

question: Did NYU make any commitment or in any way fashion 

their response to Chen’s staying at NYU? 

Let the record show that we had invited NYU’s president or faculty some 16 times to testify before this subcommittee without success. However, we are very, very pleased that Jeffrey Lehman, the 

vice chancellor of the NYU Shanghai campus, is indeed here with 

us today. 

On a personal note, I spent a considerable amount of time with 

Chen Guangcheng when he first came to the United States and 

have continued that friendship ever since. Though NYU offered 

him important sanctuary, he was, in my opinion, treated very rudely at times, particularly when it was clear that he would not isolate 

himself on campus. And that included times when I invited him to 

join Speaker Boehner and Nancy Pelosi at a joint press conference 

to hear from Chen Guangcheng about his beliefs about human 

rights in China, and it was a totally bipartisan effort, and yet that 

was not looked at very favorably. 

Though NYU offered NYU officials and others worked hard to 

cordon off access to Chen, even on the days that he came. I was 

literally moved to the side so I wouldn’t be able to have access to 

him. And that is after holding four hearings, including two in this 

room, when we got him on the phone when he was in a hospital 

in Beijing and hooked him up right here at this microphone, and 

he made his appeal to the American public and to the press that 

he would like to come to the United States. 

Reuters and The Wall Street Journal also reported that there 

was concern that Chen was too involved with so-called antiabortion 

activists, Republicans, and others, which would fit me as a description because I am very pro-life. 

We may never know if NYU experienced persistent and direct 

pressure from China to oust Chen from his NYU fellowship or 

whether they sought to isolate him in order to keep Chen’s story 

out of the 2012 Presidential election, as Professor Jerry Cohen had 

said in an interview at the time. Certainly, there is some interest 

here, as Hillary Clinton spent a whole chapter in her book detailVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:25 Sep 29, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\062515\95248 SHIRL
3

ing the events of Chen’s escape and exile in the United States, 

which, when Chen Guangcheng’s book came out, certainly was not 

the same story being told by both. Or maybe there wasn’t any pressure at all, just self-censorship to keep in Beijing’s good graces during the final stages of opening the NYU Shanghai campus. 

While we are not here to exclusively focus on the sad divorce of 

Chen Guangcheng and NYU, but his ousting begs the question: Is 

it possible to accept lucrative subsidies from the Chinese Government, or other dictatorships for that matter, and operate campuses 

on their territory and still preserve academic freedom and other 

values that make America’s universities great? 

I am sure there are those here today who say they can and reference the assurance they receive from the government or any 

agreement they sign, which is often kept secret with the host government. The real answer appears to be much more murky. 

Foreign educational partnerships indeed are important endeavors 

for students, collaborative research, cultural understanding, and 

maybe even for the host country. The U.S. model of higher education is the world’s best. American faculty, fellowships, and exchange programs are effective global ambassadors. We must all 

seek to maintain that integrity, and it is in the interest of the 

United States to do so, and particularly when it comes to China. 

Nevertheless, if U.S. colleges and universities are outsourcing 

academic control, faculty and student oversight, or curriculum to a 

foreign government, can they really be the islands of freedom in 

the midst of authoritarian states or dictatorships? Are they places 

where all students and faculty can enjoy the fundamental freedoms 

denied them in their own country? 

These questions we ask today are not abstract at all. The Chinese Government and the Communist Party are waging a persistent, intense, and escalating campaign to suppress dissent, 

purge rivals from within the party, and regain total ideological control over the arts, media, and universities. 

The campaign is broader and more extensive than any other in 

the past 20 years. Targets include human rights defenders, the 

press, social media and the Internet, civil rights lawyers, Tibetans, 

Uyghurs, and religious groups, the Falun Gong, NGOs, intellectuals and their students, and government officials, particularly 

those allied with former Chinese leader Jiang Zemin. 

Chinese universities have been targeted, as well. The recently 

issued Communist Party Directive Document 30 reinforces earlier 

warnings to purge Western-inspired notions of media independence, human rights, and the criticism of Mao Zedong. 

In a recent speech reported by The New York Times, President 

Xi Jinping urged university leaders to ‘‘keep a tight grip on . . . 

ideological work in higher education . . . never allow singing to a 

tune contrary to the party center, never allowing eating the Communist Party’s food and then smashing the Communist Party’s 

cooking pots’’—his words. 

Will anyone at NYU or Fort Hays or Johns Hopkins or Duke, for 

that matter, be allowed to smash any Chinese Communist Party 

cooking pots? It is a serious question, because if your campuses are 

subsidized by the Chinese Government, if your joint educational 

partnerships are majority-owned by the Chinese Government, 

4

aren’t you then eating the Communist Party’s food and then subject to its rules just like any Chinese university? 

I remember almost 10 years ago when Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, 

and Cisco here testified in a hearing about censorship and raised 

their hands and gave their oath that they would tell the truth. The 

persistent response to their censorship and their opening up of 

their personally identifiable information to the Communist dictatorship in China was that they were just following Chinese law. 

And many great people, like activists, particularly in the media 

area, were imprisoned because of that complicity, because they 

were enabling it. 

I will never forget showing pictures of Tiananmen Square on 

Google which showed nothing but nice pictures—that is the Chinese version—and then if you went to Google, obviously the one 

that we have access to, you got millions of hits of tanks in the 

Square and young students being killed. 

There are nine U.S. educational partnerships operating in China. 

The New York University Shanghai campus opened its doors to 

students in September 2013; Duke; the University of California, 

Berkeley’s School of Engineering; Kean College, which is located of 

course in my own State of New Jersey. In addition, there is Fort 

Hays State University out of Kansas, and there are a couple of others as well. 

I would point out to my colleagues that we have also asked—because this is the second in what will be a multiseries of hearings 

on this—the Government Accountability Office, and they have 

agreed, to study the agreements of both satellite campuses in 

China and the Confucius Institutes in the United States. 

I know some agreements are public while others are not. In fact, 

some schools made their agreements public after our last hearing, 

and we are very grateful for that. We are looking for complete and 

total transparency, and we will be asking all the universities and 

colleges to make their agreements with the Chinese Government 

public. 

We need to know if universities and colleges who are starting 

satellite programs in China can be, again, islands of freedom in 

China or in other parts of the world. We need to know what pressures are being placed on them to compromise and backstop them, 

knowing that the Congress and the U.S. Government is behind 

they being unfettered in their ability to have academic freedom. 

These are important questions. Can they be handled by the universities and faculties and trustees themselves, or are there things 

that the U.S. Congress and State Department and the White House 

need to be doing to protect these freedoms? 

I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague Mr. Sherman for any comments he might have. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am not ranking member of this subcommittee. I am not even 

a member of this subcommittee. Karen Bass asked me to sit in and 

promised that I could leave at 2:45, which I will need to do. But 

I am the ranking member of the Asia Subcommittee, which I believe is somewhat relevant to this discussion. 

5

As an interloper to this subcommittee, I want to commend the 

chair and congratulate the chair and Ranking Member Bass of the 

passage of AGOA today on the House floor. 

When it comes to the greatest human rights deprivation by 

China, it is probably the enormous trade deficit they run with the 

United States. We are now engaged in this strategic and economic 

dialogue. All the bigwigs from China are here. The entire State Department is dedicated to them. Hundreds of pages of pronouncements are being generated. I can’t find one that actually mentions 

that we have a $343 billion trade deficit with China. 

And I would point out that, while there are dozens and dozens 

of meetings, none of them are with Members of Congress, except 

for the administration has created this Potemkin village situation 

where Members of Congress are invited to participate only if they 

do not speak to anyone from China. God forbid the Chinese find 

out that there are people in the United States, unlike, perhaps, the 

administration, who care about that I mentioned the $343 billion 

trade deficit. 

Now, as to the matter at hand, we have to focus on what effect 

these educational relationships have with free speech in the United 

States and free speech in China. One other issue that is mentioned 

is, are we just cheapening the brand, independent of human rights 

and politics? Are we sending people over—are the Chinese learning 

mathematics the same way they would learn at the home campus 

here? 

That, I think, is a little outside of government’s purview. You 

know, there are Buicks being sold in China, and if GM wants to 

make a Yugo and put a Buick nameplate on it and sell it to the 

Chinese, that is their business, and it will hurt their business. The 

universities have a lot tied up in the value of their name, and I 

think that will at least assure that good mathematics is taught by 

those good universities that establish branches in China. 

But the question is, what is the effect of this relationship on free 

speech there and free speech here? As to free speech there, I think 

that American campuses in China are doing a better job of honoring American values of free speech than any other campus in 

China. So our presence there does raise the standard, to some degree. 

Even better, from a free-speech standpoint, is when Chinese students come here. I guarantee that every Chinese student that 

comes here will have a chance, often, to see the cooking pots of the 

Communist Party of China smashed. It will be a good experience 

for them. 

But, as to those who are taught there, we would want to have 

the highest standard of free speech, the highest standard of political inquiry and tough Socratic questions. My guess is that we will 

not be able to reach American standards. 

I am also concerned about the effect this all has on free speech 

here. For example, AMC—I believe it is the second-largest owner 

of movie screens in the United States—is now Chinese-owned. Is 

Richard Gere going to be in a movie about Tibet that is made in 

the future by some studio that feels that being on movie screens 

in the United States is not relevant to the success of the movie? 

I don’t know. But we do know that such a movie will not be on ChiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:25 Sep 29, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\062515\95248 SHIRL
6

nese screens and may have difficulty being on Chinese-owned 

screens here in the United States. 

More attuned to academia, I have seen Turkey try to buy chairs 

of genocide denial by endowing chairs of history, and I would be 

concerned about China endowing chairs at our university. 

They have a program worldwide of teaching Confucianism. I 

think China should be very proud of Confucian philosophy and 

what it has added to the world. The world could learn more about 

Confucianism. But I have fear that, if it is up to the Chinese Government, the version that you will learn will involve not breaking 

the cooking pots of the Chinese Communist Party. 

We do have to worry about the influence of money. Universities 

are not exempt from this, and there is a ton of money. We already 

see the enormous political power China gets from our corporations. 

The easiest way to make money is to make something for pennies 

in China and sell it for dollars in the United States. A lot of people 

are in that business, and they are a powerful force here in Washington and in the general political circles. And, of course, the 

money that our universities make on the Chinese enterprise, 

whether it be campuses there or students coming here, may very 

well affect what is taught, what stances are taken, who does the 

teaching. 

So, in conclusion, I think that having our campuses there helps 

free speech in China—though it doesn’t help it as much as if we 

were able to obtain the levels of purity and free discourse that I 

would like to see—but we can do better. And a hearing like this 

will push people like you to move in the right direction. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Rohrabacher? 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, first and foremost, I would like to 

thank our witnesses for coming today, and I would like to thank 

the chairman. 

Chairman Smith has been a stalwart example of what I think 

Americanism is supposed to be all about. We are supposed to stand 

for other things rather than simply corporate profit and making 

money. I am not against making money, and I am for lower taxes, 

but that is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind, just a 

place where selfish people could come and make a load of money 

and not care about any other values. 

No, instead, it is very clear that our Founding Fathers believed 

that there are certain rights that are granted by God to people everywhere, every individual has rights that are granted by God, and 

that as Americans we should lead the way and hold out basic values so that the world—we don’t have to go to war with everybody, 

but at the very least we should be an example to the world and 

an inspiration to people of China and everywhere that would like 

to have their freedom, as well. 

I think the moment of truth, Mr. Chairman, came—and it was 

very sad; we were defining ourselves—in 1989 when the Chinese 

military poured into Tiananmen Square and slaughtered the democracy movement. 

Let me just note that when I was working with Ronald Reagan 

in the White House for 7 years we prided ourselves that we 

7

brought down the Soviet Union without an actual military confrontation between our two societies. But we did that by supporting 

and financing and bolstering the efforts of those people who were 

struggling for freedom in their own country, in the Soviet Union, 

and in those countries that the Soviet Union was trying to dominate. 

And, in 1989, the moment came for China to reverse its course 

from dictatorship and totalitarianism. And we let them down; we 

let ourselves down. We let ourselves down because that cowardice 

that we showed in not confronting the Chinese leadership was 

something that we are now beginning to experience the negative 

side of that decision. 

People said, well, what would you have done to back them up? 

Ronald Reagan, who I worked for for 71⁄2 years, was not President 

at the time. Had he been President at the time, there would have 

been a phone call as soon as he got an intelligence report that the 

Chinese Army was going into Tiananmen Square, and that would 

have said, ‘‘I am sorry, if you destroy the democracy movement in 

China, the deal is off. No open markets, no technology transfers, 

no interaction and cooperative efforts and social interaction. It is 

all off. Don’t destroy the democracy movement.’’

George Herbert Walker Bush’s telephone call, it went like this: 

There was no telephone call. And after they invaded Tiananmen 

Square and slaughtered the democracy movement, there was no 

price for the Communist Party of China to pay. And we continued 

having policies that enriched them and their control over their 

country. 

China’s evolution stopped that day, and, since then, there has 

been no democratic reform in China. Although, we have been told, 

even after Tiananmen Square, if we just have this interaction, economically and socially and like the education programs we are talking about today, China will evolve into a better country. I have always called that the ‘‘hug a Nazi, make a liberal’’ theory. 

And there has been no evolution toward political freedom in 

China. But we have seen an enrichment and an empowering of an 

elite, a despotic and brutal and belligerent elite, in China. And it 

is now becoming very evident that this new China that is emerging 

poses, at least in the future, not only as a symbol of repression to 

their own people but as a belligerent threat to the rest of the 

world. 

When we don’t stand up for freedom and those people struggling 

for freedom in these countries, we pay the price in the end. And 

that is what is happening. 

And we have seen all of these proposals, like we are going to discuss today, with interaction on education. And there have been lots 

of these various programs that, supposedly, we are going to make 

China evolve toward a freer direction. We have instead enriched 

them and empowered them in the economic arena. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record, at this 

point, a letter that I have just sent out describing and alerting our 

Government to the fact that—a major American company has 

brought this to my attention—that the Chinese have a predatory 

strategy when it comes to business. And, especially, they are trying 

8

to get control of the chip manufacturing, get control or at least 

have a dominating influence on the manufacture of computer chips. 

And, with your permission, I would like to submit for the record 

a letter that I have just sent today alerting our Government to that 

fact. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Now, this was brought to my attention by an American company 

there. And I have the letter—it is to the Secretary of the Treasury—right here, right now. And I hope that we pay attention to 

that predatory and that negative strategy on the part of the Communist Party of China. 

However, what we talk about today, I think, has—where that is 

an immediate threat, this idea that we are having—and I disagree 

with my friend Mr. Sherman on this, and we usually agree on 

things. I do not believe that we need to bring Chinese students 

over here and train them in our technology schools. If they want 

to come over and take some courses in social studies, I think maybe 

that is okay. 

But I would like to hear from the panel today. I understand 

many of these students that are coming over are taking graduatelevel classes in the sciences, number one, which puts them in a position to out-compete us, but puts us in jeopardy in terms of knowledge that we have spent billions of dollars trying to develop in our 

scientific research. That should not be just shared with individuals 

from another country if they are going to take it home to that country. 

So we need to start using, number one, a moral system to guide 

our decisionmaking in terms of countries like China, but we need 

to be courageous, and we need to make sure that we are honest 

with ourselves about what these policies are accomplishing. 

Thank you again. Thanks to the witnesses for alerting us what 

is going on with our universities, how that is impacting this whole 

dynamic at play. 

So thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Chairman Rohrabacher. 

You underscored—and I think most members of the panel know 

this, that Mr. Rohrabacher was a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan. 

And the opposition to what George Herbert Walker Bush did, especially in sending Brent Scowcroft soon after Tiananmen Square to 

assure the dictatorship that they had nothing to fear from the 

United States, was one of the most infamous betrayals, in my opinion, that is only paralleled by, not exceeded or matched but paralleled by, President Clinton, when he de-linked human rights and 

trade, infamously, on a Friday afternoon, when the Chinese took 

the measure of the United States of America and said, profits 

trump human rights. 

And the Executive order, which I had lauded—held press conference after press conference thanking President Clinton for—only 

to find out it was a ruse. That was when they realized that America, at least the administration, cared only about making more 

money, at the expense of human rights activism. And none of the 

matriculation from dictatorship to human rights protections have 

occurred. 

9

Mark Meadows, the vice——

Mr. SHERMAN. If I could——

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Chairman of the——

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman from California mentioned me. I was simply saying that Chinese students 

here in the United States will learn our systems of free expression. 

I never weighed that benefit to our values with the technological 

progress that they might be able to furnish to their government. 

And so you would have to weigh one or the other. 

And I join with the gentleman in feeling that those who study 

sociology, political science, and history in the United States are 

more of a pure plus for our values. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very, very 

brief. 

Thank each of you for your willingness to testify here today, for 

illuminating an issue that, if we do not talk about, becomes a bigger and bigger problem. And so your testimony is not only important, but it is also one that hopefully will make a change. 

The chairman has been a champion for human rights, freedom 

of speech and freedom of religion, unparalleled by anybody else 

here in Congress. And so it is an honor to serve with him. 

It certainly is one that we would love to know what legislative 

things or what pressure can be brought to bear for us to truly address that. And coming from the great State of North Carolina, we 

have a lot of institutions of higher learning, and I enjoy a good relationship with many of those. 

And so, Mr. Chairman, this is a fly-out day, and there are not 

many members, and so I wanted to be here to show that it is not 

only a priority for the chairman but a priority for many of the others of us in Congress. So thank you for being here. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Meadows. 

Let me begin first by introducing our first distinguished panelist, 

Mr. Jeffrey Lehman, who is the first vice chancellor of NYU Shanghai. He has previously been chancellor and founding dean of the 

Peking University School of Transnational Law, president of Cornell University, dean of the University of Michigan Law School, a 

tenured professor of law and public policy at the University of 

Michigan. He has also been a practicing lawyer in Washington, DC, 

a law clerk, including being a law clerk to Associate Justice John 

Paul Stevens of the United States Supreme Court. 

Welcome, Mr. Lehman. 

We will then hear from Ms. Susan Lawrence, who is a specialist 

in Asian affairs at the Congressional Research Service, a unit of 

the Library of Congress that provides the U.S. Congress with research and analysis. She covers U.S.-China relations, Chinese foreign policy, Chinese domestic politics, Taiwan, and Mongolia. She 

joined CRS after a career spent largely in journalism in which she 

worked in Beijing for 11 years and reported from Washington, DC. 

Immediately prior to joining the CRS, Ms. Lawrence managed public health advocacy programs in China for a Washington, DC-based 

NGO. 

10

Then we will hear from Mr. Robert Daly, who has directed the 

Kissinger Institute on China and the U.S. at the Wilson Center 

since 2013. Previously, he was at the University of Maryland, 

where he served from 2007 until 2013. And, prior to that, he was 

American director of the Johns Hopkins University-Nanjing University Center for Chinese and American Studies for 6 years. Mr. 

Daly began his work in U.S.-China relations as a diplomat, serving 

as an officer in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing. He has taught at Cornell, Syracuse, and has worked on TV and theater projects in 

China as a host, actor, and writer. 

We will then hear from Dr. Mirta Martin, who was appointed the 

ninth president of Fort Hays State University in 2014. Dr. Martin 

is the first female president in the 113-year history of Fort Hays 

State University and the first Hispanic president in the more-than150-year history of the entire Kansas Regents system. Dr. Martin’s 

career involves work in both public and private sectors, including 

special expertise in organizational behavior, management, institutional advancement, and workplace development. She has worked 

as a senior banking executive, held numerous positions in higher 

education, and was appointed by the former Governor of Virginia 

to serve on the Virginia Council on the Status of Women. 

Then we will hear from Ms. Yaxue Cao, who was the founder and 

editor of ChinaChange.org, an English language Web site devoted 

to news and commentary related to civil society, the rule of law, 

and human rights activities in China. The site works to help the 

rest of the world understand what people are thinking and doing 

to effect change in the PRC. Reports and translations on China 

Change have been cited by The New York Times, Time Magazine, 

The Guardian, Telegraph, The Washington Post, and The New Republic, among others, and of course has been included in many congressional reports. Ms. Cao grew up in northern China during the 

cultural revolution and studied literature in the United States. 

Mr. Lehman, if you could proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JEFFREY S. LEHMAN, VICE CHANCELLOR, 

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY–SHANGHAI 

Mr. LEHMAN. Chairman Smith, other Members of Congress, I 

thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. 

I have submitted detailed written testimony concerning my experiences in China. Because of time constraints, my oral testimony 

will only touch the key points. 

I moved to China in 2008 because the president of Peking University asked me to help his university create the first law school 

outside the United States to offer a true J.D. Program taught in 

the American way. I hesitated at first, but people like Justice Anthony Kennedy stressed my patriotic duty as an American to help 

develop the rule of law in China. And so I agreed to go, but I insisted that I be given absolute control over the school’s curriculum 

and faculty appointments and that the school operate according to 

fundamental principles of academic freedom. 

Peking University has fully honored those promises. For example, the students there study American constitutional principles 

with the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of 

Southern California, and they learn about international courts 

11

from the chair of the American Bar Association Human Rights Advisory Council. 

That law school is part of a government-supported effort inside 

China to experiment with new approaches to higher education, and 

so is NYU Shanghai, which began teaching in 2013. NYU Shanghai 

is a degree-granting campus of New York University, whose work 

must be accredited by both the Middle States Commission on Higher Education in Philadelphia and China’s Ministry of Education in 

Beijing. 

The trustees of New York University award degrees to its graduates. Therefore, NYU agreed to participate, on the condition that 

it would operate under principles of academic freedom. NYU has 

exclusive and final responsibility over faculty appointments, student admissions, curricula, academic policies and procedures, et 

cetera. 

Half of NYU Shanghai’s undergraduates come from China, and 

half come from the rest of the world. 

NYU Shanghai delivers an undergraduate liberal education in 

the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, promoting the 

skills of critical and creative thinking. All of our undergraduate 

students pursue a core curriculum in Shanghai for 2 years and 

then spend their junior year studying at other campuses within 

NYU’s network, which now spans 14 cities around the world. And 

then they return to Shanghai to complete their degrees. 

We at NYU choose the faculty who teach our courses, and I am 

proud to say that we have recruited a remarkable group of stars 

who do not diminish the brand and who are listed in Appendix 1 

to my written testimony. 

Financially, NYU does not profit from its activities in Shanghai. 

NYU Shanghai sits as a tub on its own bottom. So why, you might 

ask, has NYU taken this on? Two reasons stand out. 

First, NYU Shanghai advances NYU’s bold redefinition of how a 

university can be structured. In the 21st century, the phenomena 

of globalization and modern information and communications technologies have created new challenges and new opportunities for humanity. In order to more effectively fulfill its academic mission, 

NYU expanded to become a global network of campuses and academic centers in important cities. Students can enter NYU through 

the degree-granting campuses in New York, Abu Dhabi, and 

Shanghai, and they can study away in 11 other cities. 

Shanghai is a superb location for NYU to have established a degree-granting campus. China is an extraordinarily important and 

rapidly changing country, and Shanghai is New York’s natural 

counterpart. 

Second, NYU Shanghai provides NYU with an essential opportunity to reflect deeply about what knowledge, skills, and virtues 

this generation of students requires in order to lead lives of satisfaction and contribution. NYU Shanghai is a place where NYU can 

experiment with new ways of developing those qualities. 

For example, because it is so important today that each of us 

know how to see the world through the eyes of others, NYU Shanghai requires every student to live with a roommate from another 

country. 

12

I personally teach the course that all students are required to 

take during freshman year, an intellectual history course which I 

teach using the Socratic method, in which students engage a set of 

great books by authors such Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John 

Locke, Adam Smith, and Friedrich Hayek. These are the same 

readings I would use if I were teaching the course in New York, 

and I included syllabi from the course as Appendix 2 to my written 

testimony. 

NYU Shanghai is a pioneering university, and we receive dozens 

of visitors to our campus every week. We would be delighted if any 

members of this subcommittee or their staffs would come to visit 

us. 

People who have not visited us in person occasionally suggest 

that NYU Shanghai should not exist. Sometimes they argue that 

American universities should stay away from any authoritarian 

country. Sometimes they say that China presents unique risks that 

render academic freedom impossible. While I appreciate the good 

motives of these individuals who speculate about our university 

from afar, I do not believe their conclusions are well-founded. 

First of all, the benefits of engagement are enormous. Our universities in America nuture skills and values that we believe are 

important to their wellbeing as individuals and to their societies. 

We are all better off if Chinese students, American students, and 

students from around the world have the chance to study at institutions like ours. And we would all be better off if countries all 

around the world developed institutions like ours that could provide those benefits to large numbers of their citizens. 

China is in the middle of a period of astonishing change. Within 

Chinese society, there is heated debate about what direction 

change should take over the next two decades and about what 

goals should take precedence over others. This debate is more likely to go well if the participants can point to the positive impact of 

schools like NYU Shanghai on Chinese students. 

The challenge of engagement in foreign lands is real, but it does 

not come close to offsetting those benefits. American universities 

themselves grew and prospered in a flawed country with serious 

human rights problems like slavery, but our universities have been 

durable institutions and have made important contributions to 

America’s progress. 

To be sure, we have to be vigilant. A university such as ours cannot function if students and faculty are not free to ask questions 

and to entertain arguments that might be disruptive and even offensive to others. Norms of civility may be imposed, but they must 

not cut off genuine and rigorous inquiry. If it would become impossible to operate with academic freedom, NYU would close down its 

Shanghai campus. 

Last weekend, I told a Shanghainese friend that I would be testifying here today. He asked why, and I explained that some people 

who value the free exchange of ideas believe American universities 

should not be present in China. His response was crisp and, I believe, quite apt. He said, ‘‘If someone is truly committed to the free 

exchange of ideas here in China, they should want to see more 

schools like NYU Shanghai, not fewer.’’

13

I believe in my heart that this is a noble project. It is not without 

risk, but it has the potential to benefit all of humanity. 

In my written testimony, I suggest that Congress consider creating a scholarship program to ensure that students from families 

of modest means are able to study abroad at programs like these. 

I hope that you will take that proposal seriously. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lehman follows:]

14


95248b-1.eps
15


95248b-2.eps
16


95248b-3.eps
17


95248b-4.eps
18


95248b-5.eps
19


95248b-6.eps
20


95248b-7.eps
21


95248b-8.eps
22


95248b-9.eps
23

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Lehman, thank you very much for your testimony. 

I would like to now ask Ms. Lawrence if she would proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MS. SUSAN V. LAWRENCE, SPECIALIST IN 

ASIAN AFFAIRS, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Chairman Smith, Congressman Rohrabacher, 

Congressman Sherman, Congressman Meadows, thank you for this 

invitation to testify today. 

China’s Ministry of Education indicates it has so far approved 11 

U.S. universities and 1 U.S. individual to work with Chinese partners to run cooperative education institutions in China, essentially 

joint campuses. The Ministry has granted three of these institutions independent legal person status, which may give them some 

greater autonomy in their operations than those without such status. Those three are NYU Shanghai, Duke Kunshan University, 

and Wenzhou-Kean University. 

In addition, the Chinese Ministry of Education has approved a 

broader set of U.S. universities to work with Chinese partners to 

offer degree programs on campuses operated solely by Chinese 

partners. More than 80 U.S. universities are involved in partnerships to offer undergraduate degrees, and more than 30 U.S. universities are involved in partnerships to offer graduate degrees in 

China. In all, universities from at least 36 of the 50 U.S. States appear to be involved in approved cooperative educational institutions 

or programs in China. 

In the case of high-profile partnerships to establish new joint 

campuses, U.S. universities cite benefits in the forms of generous 

funding from the Chinese side, typically covering all campus construction costs and some or all operating costs; opportunities for 

new global research collaborations; and opportunities for students 

from the universities’ home campuses to broaden their education 

through study abroad. 

Critics of U.S. educational collaborations in China have focused 

on several areas of concern. The most prominent relates to the 

compromises U.S. universities may be forced to make with regard 

to academic freedom—the subject of this hearing. 

Educational institutions in China, including those with U.S. partners, are subject to an array of Chinese laws and administrative 

regulations and guidance documents. The key national laws include 

the 1995 Education Law and the 1998 Higher Education Law. 

Several provisions of the Higher Education Law have implications for academic freedom on campuses with U.S. partners. As I 

will discuss later, however, not all of these provisions appear to be 

uniformly enforced. 

Article 10 of the Higher Education Law stipulates that the state 

‘‘safeguards the freedom of scientific research, literary and artistic 

creations, and other cultural activities in institutions of higher 

learning according to law,’’ but it also says that such creations and 

activities should abide by law, potentially limiting such freedoms. 

Article 39 of the law outlines the leadership role of Communist 

Party committees in state-run higher education institutions. It 

states that Communist Party committees ‘‘exercise unified leadership over the work of the institutions’’ and that the committees’ duVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:25 Sep 29, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\062515\95248 SHIRL
24

ties are, among other things, to guide ideological and political work 

and moral education on campuses and to make key personnel decisions. 

Article 51 of the law stipulates that ‘‘the basis for the appointment, [or] dismissal’’ of faculty and administrative personnel 

should be ideology and political performance first, followed by professional ethics, professional skill, and actual achievements. 

Similarly, Article 58 of the law stipulates that students should 

be permitted to graduate if they, first, ‘‘are qualified in their ideology and moral character,’’ and, secondarily, if they have ‘‘completed the study of the courses required and have passed the examinations or got all the credits required.’’

Finally, Article 53 requires that students of institutions of higher 

learning should ‘‘build up their physiques and the concepts of patriotism, collectivism, and socialism; diligently study Marxism, Leninism, Mao Zedong thought, and Deng Xiaoping theory; have sound 

ideology and moral character; and grasp a comparatively high level 

of scientific and cultural knowledge and specialized skills.’’

In 2003, China’s State Council promulgated regulations specifically addressing collaborations with foreign partners in education. 

The regulations bar foreign partners from involvement in military 

academies, police academies, and political education. They also bar 

foreign religious organizations, religious institutions, religious colleges and universities, and so-called religious workers from involvement in cooperative education efforts in China, and they bar joint 

campuses from offering religious education or conducting religious 

activities. 

The regulations require that Chinese foreign educational collaborations ‘‘not jeopardize China’s sovereignty, security, and public interests’’—a broad requirement that Chinese authorities could use 

to rule out academic discussion related to Taiwan, Tibet, Uyghurs, 

electoral reform in Hong Kong, the Falun Gong spiritual group, 

and other topics. 

It appears that, in practice, the Chinese Government has been 

willing to relax some of these requirements, particularly in the case 

of jointly operated institutions with independent legal person status and significant numbers of non-Chinese students, such as NYU 

Shanghai and Duke Kunshan University, a partnership among 

Duke University, China’s Wuhan University, and the Government 

of Kunshan Municipality in China’s Jiangsu Province. 

On the role of party committees, a 2013 article in the Global 

Times, a tabloid affiliated with the Chinese Communist Party’s 

paper of record, the People’s Daily, cited unnamed educators as 

saying that ‘‘unlike Chinese universities, where administrative interference is considered one of the biggest problems with the education system, the Party committees in these branch campuses usually don’t have a say in academic affairs.’’

NYU Shanghai’s chancellor, Yu Lizhong, told a Hong Kong newspaper in 2012 that the NYU Shanghai campus would be run by a 

board of directors rather than by a Communist Party committee. 

And the NYU Shanghai Web site contains no reference to a party 

committee. 

Public reports of the Communist Party activities of NYU Shanghai staff relate to their participation in party bodies and activities 

25

not at NYU Shanghai but at NYU Shanghai’s academic partner in 

the NYU Shanghai campus, East China Normal University. NYU 

Shanghai’s head of human resources, for example, is identified on 

East China Normal University’s Web site as serving concurrently 

as the head of the party branch of East China Normal University’s 

Chinese-Foreign Cooperation Office. 

In contrast, one of the three campuses run jointly by Fort Hays 

State University, Henan Province-based Sias International University, openly lists information about its Communist Party Committee on its Chinese language Web site. The Web site lists the 

school’s Party Secretary and Deputy Party Secretary as among the 

nine members of the school’s leadership group and includes an organization chart showing party structures across the university, including party groups in the university’s business school, law school, 

school of international education, and nine other schools. 

On the scope of permitted expression, U.S. media reports indicate 

that academic discussions on campuses in China jointly operated 

by U.S. partners do sometimes stray onto topics that would be 

taboo on other campuses in China, especially when the joint campuses include significant numbers of non-Chinese students. 

Such campuses may also have arrangements allowing their students unfettered access to the Internet, including to sites that are 

usually blocked in China, such as Google, Gmail, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Such allowances may contribute to greater levels 

of overall academic freedom on such campuses than China normally tolerates. 

The legal guarantees underpinning such zones of free speech, 

however, remain ambiguous, raising questions about the long-term 

sustainability of such zones. Some observers have also noted that, 

because joint campuses in China tend to be heavily subsidized by 

the Chinese Government, the government may have significant leverage if serious disputes over academic freedom issues should 

arise. 

My fellow panelists are the experts on how their institutions operate within the broad legal and regulatory framework for institutions of higher learning in China and within the context of their 

individual partnership agreements and their legal person status. I 

look forward to learning from them. 

Thank you again, Chairman Smith, for the opportunity to testify 

about these issues. As an employee of the Congressional Research 

Service, I am confined to speaking about the technical and professional aspects of the issues under discussion in this hearing and to 

answering questions within my field of expertise. With that understanding, I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lawrence follows:]

26


95248a-1.eps
27


95248a-2.eps
28


95248a-3.eps
29


95248a-4.eps
30


95248a-5.eps
31


95248a-6.eps
32

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Lawrence, thank you very much for your testimony. 

And, without objection, your full statement and that of all of our 

distinguished witnesses will be made a part of the record, but I 

thank you for it. 

Now, Mr. Daly. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT DALY, DIRECTOR, KISSINGER INSTITUTE ON CHINA AND THE U.S., WOODROW WILSON 

INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS 

Mr. DALY. I would like to thank the chair and the other members 

of the committee for the chance to discuss a very important set of 

issues with you today. 

These are issues that I have worked on from within government 

and academia for almost 30 years. And I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that all of your concerns are very well-founded, and they require constant attention from the practitioners in the field who are 

working with China. There are no easy answers to this. It requires 

balance. 

Many of my Chinese colleagues and friends would be surprised 

to hear that there was a discussion today about Chinese influence 

on American universities, because, in their experience, the influence has flowed almost entirely in the other direction since 1854, 

when the first Chinese earned a degree from an American University. 

In fact, the very idea of the university, the modern university in 

China, was introduced from the West and primarily from the 

United States by people like John Leighton Stuart, by Johns Hopkins University, Oberlin, Yale, and Harvard, who brought the idea 

of the academic disciplines at university degrees to China in the 

first place. And the model for China’s universities, their structures, 

their degrees, their governance—with the exception of the involvement of the Chinese Communist Party, which is pervasive, as you 

suggest—this model comes primarily from the United States. 

Even today, Chinese universities are adapting American academic standards and models to suit China’s needs, and Chinese 

scholars seek partnership with American experts and publication 

in American journals. Furthermore, young Chinese, as you have 

mentioned, now comprise 29 percent of all foreign students in the 

U.S., and approximately 2 million have pursued degrees here since 

1979. 

On the other side of the equation, American academics rarely 

seek publication in Chinese journals, most of which are of low quality and many of which deal in plagiarized and faked research. And 

few American students pursue degrees from Chinese universities. 

Most Americans students who visit China—and I support them to 

do so, I believe strongly in the value of study abroad, but most of 

these students go for short-term language and cultural classes as 

part of U.S. degree programs. So Chinese education, as such, holds 

very little allure for Americans. 

So there can be no question that American universities have far 

greater impact on China than China has on them, just as there can 

be no question that American soft power in China overall—our influence on Chinese institutions, the aspirations, tastes, and values 

33

of the Chinese people—while they are not what we would like them 

to be, dwarf China’s soft power here. I think that that fact has to 

be kept clearly in mind, because calls for reconsideration of our policy of engagement with China are growing more strident. 

Still, yes, as you note, China does exert influence on American 

universities, and that seems to be growing. And it comes, I believe, 

primarily from American colleges’ and universities’ need for and 

their fear of losing Chinese sources of financing, although it doesn’t 

come only from there. 

We should mention, too, that while we are talking about our concerns about Chinese impacts on America, we should recognize the 

contribution that educational exchanges with China have made to 

the United States. This is not just a story about the flow of Chinese 

money into American universities. Even more beneficial has been 

the flow of Chinese talent and energy into American society. 

Many of the Chinese students who study here remain in the U.S. 

after graduation, and this new generation of immigrants, like their 

predecessors, is providing a vital infusion of expertise into every 

professional field and academic discipline in the United States. So 

we should recognize today that when we speak of Chinese students, 

this is not to demonize them; we are also speaking of our American 

neighbors, colleagues, and friends, and they are making a big contribution to this country. 

We should also note that money isn’t the only thing that American universities want from the PRC. They also cooperate with 

China in order to fulfill their academic missions. American scholars, if they are to be leaders in their field, need access to Chinese 

archives, data, and research sites. They need to interview Chinese 

experts and survey Chinese populations. They need study-abroad 

opportunities for American students. American students now cannot be leaders in their field unless they have knowledge in China. 

In short, because the PRC is now central, whether we like it or 

not, to nearly every global issue, be it strategic, economic, technological, environmental, public health, U.S. universities cannot do 

their work, they cannot be universal, unless they engage with 

China to some degree. 

This is a new situation not only for American universities but for 

American corporations, professional institutions, American 

filmmakers, American subnational governments. They now have 

China interests, China relations, and China policies. This is a positive development, I believe, in the main, but it has its dangers. 

American universities fear ill repute in China. They fear being 

cut off from China. They fear the loss of Chinese tuition and fees. 

And this fear does give China leverage, and China knows it. 

We should, furthermore, be worried about how China will use the 

leverage. As the chairman has mentioned, Document 9 and following documents make very clear that issues like constitutional 

democracy, civil society, neoliberal economics, and Western ideas of 

journalism cannot be discussed openly in Chinese universities or in 

the Chinese media. 

Earlier this year, China’s Minister of Education, Yuan Guiren, 

told a meeting of Chinese academic leaders in Beijing that they 

should reduce the number of Western-published textbooks in their 

34

classrooms and ‘‘by no means allow teaching materials that disseminate Western values.’’

The reason for this prohibition was provided by the state-run 

Global Times paper that Susan mentioned. They wrote, ‘‘Young 

students and teachers are the major groups used by enemy forces 

to penetrate and divide China.’’ This is the attitude. 

So Yuan’s statement sounds like a direct order to Chinese universities and a direct threat to American schools that offer American degrees on Chinese soil. If Western textbooks, as China 

claims, are vectors that infect young Chinese minds and weaken 

the country, are not Western faculty members and universities 

more dangerous still? 

And it is this situation, I think, that has compelled this subcommittee to ask the question about whether academic freedom can 

be maintained while working in and with a country such as the 

PRC. 

Despite these difficulties, however, I would argue that there is a 

way forward under the current set of circumstances. Now, circumstances could change, and there is definitely a time to pull out 

tent stakes and say that, yes, while the perfect may be the enemy 

of the good, China is imposing conditions on American universities 

that they cannot meet, as you mentioned. There could be a time to 

leave, but we are not there yet. 

And the reason, I think, is that, despite Xi Jinping’s ideology 

campaign and despite the political character of Chinese universities, American universities have been able to find ways to interact with Chinese counterparts that do not threaten academic freedom. 

How can this be done? Is there room for honorable maneuver? I 

think there is because, as Susan has suggested, Xi Jinping’s campaign and Yuan Guiren’s pronouncements against American textbooks haven’t meant much in practice yet on campuses. There is 

an atmosphere of hesitancy and fear in Chinese academic, cultural, 

and media circles that we haven’t seen since the aftermath of the 

Tiananmen massacre, but, to date, there have been no reports of 

Chinese faculty being required to revise their reading lists or of 

Chinese colleges altering their curriculum. There has of yet been 

no systematic implementation of this very backward and draconian 

ideological campaign. 

Many Chinese students and scholars within China, furthermore, 

question and mock openly Yuan Guiren’s call to restrict Western 

textbooks, and they do this in state-run media. So it is hard to 

keep track of what all this means in China. 

The president of Tiankai University wrote in the Communist 

Party flagship paper, the People’s Daily, ‘‘I have read people on the 

Internet saying that the ranks of academics must be cleansed, purified, and rectified. I can’t agree with this. This was the mentality 

of 1957,’’ the violent anti-rightist campaign, ‘‘or 1966,’’ which was 

the launch of the cultural revolution. Other Chinese critics point 

out gleefully that Marxism is itself a Western idea and that this 

campaign is, therefore, self-contradictory and incoherent. 

So we don’t yet know where this is headed. There is space that 

is in play. And it may be that Beijing is only paying lip service to 

rectification on Chinese campuses because Beijing remains conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:25 Sep 29, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\062515\95248 SHIRL
35

flicted about the influence of the West. We still lead, we, the West, 

with the United States at the fore, lead the world in nearly every 

field of academic inquiry. 

And Xi Jinping surely knows that, despite demonizing Western 

culture, China cannot meet his reform goals unless it masters 

Western learning. His desire to make China a leader in the international knowledge economy and his demand that Chinese universities produce more innovative students are at odds with his calls 

for ideological purity. And everyone in China knows that his own 

daughter is a graduate of Harvard University, so it makes it hard 

to be too loud about these issues. 

So lastly, I would just like to make a few specific recommendations going forward to universities that want to work with China. 

One is, I would suggest that all memoranda of understanding 

with Chinese universities state clearly that any relationship or program can be concluded at any time by either party if its standards 

of academic freedom, academic integrity, or academic rigor are 

compromised. This clause will serve as a warning to both sides and 

a reminder of first principles, and it will protect American partners 

if Xi’s ideological agenda is actually put into practice, at which 

point these programs do become untenable, in my view. MOUs 

should also, as the chair suggests, be made public, as any practices 

that fall short of full transparency will fuel a reasonable skepticism, the skepticism that American faculty, students, and other 

university stakeholders rightly have. 

American faculty, furthermore, and having worked in Hopkins 

and other universities I have seen this in practice, American faculty should be consulted at every stage in the planning of cooperative ventures with China, and faculty should vote to decide whether projects meet their standards of academic quality. This is essential because university administrators have to consider financial 

and political matters while faculty loyalty is to their discipline, to 

their departments, and to standards, so faculty need to lead. 

U.S. colleges and universities should not allow the Chinese Government or any other national government, or its agencies, to appoint faculty or instructors on American campuses, to violate U.S. 

fair hiring laws, or to dictate program conditions that violate U.S. 

best practices. 

And lastly, the U.S. Government, you asked what the government can do, we should ask regularly in our representations, ask 

Beijing to clarify its opposition to Western culture and its policies 

restricting foreign NGOs. China does not shy away, as you know, 

from accusing American media of bias against China. We shouldn’t 

be reticent about asking why Beijing has a formal campaign demonizing our values. 

But in closing, even as we remain vigilant, I think that we must 

remember that our educational institutions, culture, and ideas 

have vastly more influence in China than China has here. That influence is made possible by our policy of engagement. Curtailing 

engagement would cut off our influence, which would serve neither 

American interests nor those of the Chinese people. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Daly follows:]

36


95248e-1.eps
37


95248e-2.eps
38


95248e-3.eps
39


95248e-4.eps
40


95248e-5.eps
41


95248e-6.eps
42

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Daly, thank you so very much for your testimony. 

We are joined by Eliot Engel, who is the ranking Democrat on 

the full Foreign Affairs Committee. 

Mr. Engel. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for calling this hearing. Thank you for your leadership. We have 

discussed this together for many, many years. Thank you for your 

concern about academic freedom, especially when it comes to American institutions operating in the People’s Republic of China. 

Let me welcome our witnesses. Thank you for sharing your time 

and expertise. We really, really appreciate it. 

I want to give a shout-out to Vice Chancellor Lehman. NYU is 

near and dear to my heart. I am very proud to have that as one 

of the wonderful institutions in New York City. And while you are 

not in New York City, you are certainly an extension of that wonderful, wonderful campus. And so welcome. And I also am told that 

you are a native of Bronxville, New York, which is in my district. 

So that is two good things. And I know you have come a long way 

to be with us today, all the way from Shanghai. I am so grateful 

to see you. 

I support these things. I think academic exchanges are a very 

critical tool to building relationships between Americans and people around the world. I was a teacher myself. Before I ever got a 

law degree, before I ever went into politics, I was a classroom 

teacher. I have seen firsthand how new ideas and new perspectives 

can transform a student’s understanding of the world and of themselves. And when students from around the world sit in our classrooms, or when American academics teach and research abroad, I 

really believe it helps to spread knowledge and understanding. And 

these person-to-person ties are the foundation of strong engagements between countries and governments. And that is why I think 

these exchanges are a priority and should remain so in our foreign 

policy. So thank all of you for what you do. 

The United States and China have a troubled relationship in 

many ways, but have a long history of educational exchange. And 

as Mr. Daly testified, the U.S. has had far more influence on China 

as a result of these educational exchanges than China has had on 

the United States. So we should put aside the question of whether 

these exchanges should take place, the value, as far as I am concerned is clear, but we should be asking how they take place. We 

need to make sure these educational agreements continue to benefit students and teachers, and also to advance American interests. 

We have heard that NYU has worked hard to maintain full academic freedom on their campus in Shanghai. So far the Chinese 

authorities, I am told, haven’t interfered with course material or 

classroom discussions. So to me, it seems that the NYU Shanghai 

campus is resulting in more freedom and a greater exchange of 

ideas, not less. To be sure, NYU needs to stay vigilant in protecting 

these freedoms, and I expect that will be the case. 

Another issue is whether financial arrangements between university partners could prejudice the academic freedom of U.S. institutions. Fort Hays State has established two campuses in China that 

issue U.S. bachelor’s degrees to Chinese students, one through a 

43

partnership with Sias International University, and one with the 

Shenyang Normal University. 

Dr. Martin, I guess, will testify in your written testimony that 

the faculty have voluntarily chosen to avoid the topic of the 

Tiananmen Square massacre. The issue is considered too sensitive 

for discussion in China. I think we need to take a hard look at this 

sort of self-censorship and how it relates to the academic freedom 

of American institutions, and I look forward to a rich discussion. 

So I am going to end by again thanking the chairman for having 

this very important hearing and thanking our witnesses for giving 

their unique perspectives. That is how we in Congress learn. We 

talk to ourselves too much. We like to learn by talking to people 

who are experts in what they do. 

So thank you all, and I appreciate you coming here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Engel. 

Dr. Martin, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MIRTA M. MARTIN, PH.D., PRESIDENT, FORT 

HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY 

Ms. MARTIN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Thank you for affording me today the opportunity to come before you and to provide 

you with testimony. In the interest of time, and with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will provide you a summary of those comments since you have the full spectrum in your possession. 

Fort Hays State University was established in 1902 when the 

U.S. House of Representatives decommissioned the U.S. Army 

Base, Fort Hays, and gave the land to form a state university. 

Since then, Fort Hays State University has evolved and is now a 

regional comprehensive university serving close to 14,000 students 

through three modalities: On campus, where we serve approximately 4,800 students; the Virtual College, which delivers online 

education to about 5,800 students located in Kansas, nearly all 50 

States, and the U.S. Armed Services personnel internationally; and 

in China, where we have approximately 3,100 students. 

In March 1999, Fort Hays State University was introduced to a 

private university in China, Sias International University, a university that had previously been approved by the Chinese Government. Sias affiliates with the prestigious Zhengzhou University, located in the Henan Province of China, which is a sister province 

to the State of Kansas. Fort Hays State University’s profile was 

presented to the Ministry of Education in China, who approved the 

request to deliver courses leading to a bachelor’s degree. This partnership came under the Chinese regulation of Sino-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools, and the initial agreement was 

signed in May 2000. 

In the fall of 2000, Fort Hays State University delivered its first 

courses to 40 students. Fort Hays State University does not have 

a satellite campus in China; rather, it operates through a partnership agreement to deliver courses leading to bachelor’s degrees 

which are dual in nature. These courses are taught by faculty hired 

by Fort Hays State University, many of whom live on the campuses 

44

of our partner institutions, and Fort Hays State University has labeled the delivery of these courses cross border education. 

Soon after offering Fort Hays State University’s first courses, we 

were asked by the Chinese Government to provide the syllabi, textbooks, and other instructional resources, as well as the faculty credentials for the courses offered to Chinese students. All materials 

requested were forwarded to the Chinese Government, and soon 

thereafter we were approved to deliver bachelor’s degrees in China. 

There was no censorship of the content of any course by the government, nor by the university partners. The Chinese Government 

has never asked again to review our curriculum, to review our content, or to review the faculty credentials. 

In 2010, Fort Hays State University’s two partners, Sias University and Shenyang Normal University, which was approved in 

2004, were selected by the Ministry of Education to conduct a selfstudy related to the quality and performance of the dual degree 

programs. Other universities through the world that fell under the 

regulations, entitled Sino-Foreign Cooperation in Running Schools, 

were also selected. The work was not inconsequential and the results identified Fort Hays State University’s practices as a model 

for other universities. As a matter of fact, 50 percent of the partners operating in China at that time failed this regulation, and as 

a result their partnerships were canceled. 

The guarantee of teaching quality is the sole responsibility of 

Fort Hays State University. Faculty teaching in China report to 

international coordinators and department chairs who are located 

on the campus of Fort Hays State University, just like any other 

faculty would that teach on our campus. All faculty teaching in 

China are required to attend a week-long training in Hays, America, conducted by the Fort Hays State University academic units 

prior to even setting foot in China. The Chinese Government, as a 

matter of fact, has been rather impressed that Fort Hays State 

University spends significant financial resources and time to train 

our faculty and to ensure academic rigor and academic consistency. 

Faculty have had total control over the design and content of the 

curriculum. The textbooks and other circulor materials are selected 

only by our faculty. The partners purchase these materials from 

import-export companies and the students are required to refer to 

them in the classroom. Rarely, the administration of the universities or the party secretary visit the Fort Hays State University 

courses. 

At this time, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like 

to brief you very quickly on the programs offered by Fort Hays 

State University in China. All Chinese students enroll in an academic program offered by Fort Hays State University and they 

take English Composition sequence 101 and 102, as would our students here in the United States. The sequence provides the foundation for introducing Chinese students to Western values and the 

Western educational system. 

One of the most important goals of these courses is the development of critical thinking and analytical skills. These English 

courses mirror the courses offered on campus at Fort Hays State 

University, although they are augmented with English for foreign 

language learners strategies to accommodate the foreign students’ 

45

abilities as English learners. Chinese students are held to exactly 

the same standards of academic integrity as our U.S. students, and 

classroom practices, such as group work, collaboration, and active 

participation, which foster Western educational values. The Department of Leadership Studies in the College of Arts and Sciences 

has offered a bachelor of science degree at Sias University and 

Shenyang Normal since 2008. 

Despite the academic freedom enjoyed by faculty teaching the 

curriculum, Fort Hays State University has experienced some instances where the faculty of the partner school has been complacent in undermining academic integrity, but Fort Hays State University has met with the partner institutions’ leadership team to 

work through solutions to these issues surrounding academic integrity, and requests by Fort Hays State University have been met 

with great support. I will say that more faculty and more student 

training, the use of student identification cards, and enforcement 

of policy need to be fully implemented to augment the progress in 

this area. 

As a whole, Fort Hays State University has dealt with issues of 

academic integrity by taking the stance that we own the curriculum and that our standards of academic rigor and academic excellence will not be sidetracked. Collaboration between Fort Hays 

State University and the Department of Political Science has been 

extremely positive. We have experienced absolutely no efforts to infringe the academic freedom or integrity of our Political Science: 

Legal Studies program. All universities have been respectful, transparent, and collaborative with each other. Learning about the 

American system of government and law has been the key learning 

objective of this program. 

In the decade of teaching American law and government at two 

institutions in China, Fort Hays State University has never encountered any resistance in teaching Western values or political 

structure. Through the political science curriculum, the students 

receive extensive exposure to the U.S. democratic system of government and rule of law. In courses such as the American Government, Introduction to Law, and Constitutional Law, faculty spend 

a significant amount of time discussing the issues of civil liberties, 

and civil rights, including the concepts of due process, equal protection, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion 

and assembly, and the rights of criminal defendants. In essence, we 

discuss our Bill of Rights. 

The predominant programs at Fort Hays State University’s College of Business and Entrepreneurship, such as the Bachelor of 

Business Administration in Management and the Bachelor of Administration in International Business and Economics, by their nature, typically do not involve subjects that are sensitive or political 

in nature. However, our faculty have always had access to Western 

academic databases, albeit limited, and have never been prevented 

from sharing Western scholarship in the classroom setting. 

Every semester Fort Hays State University conducts student and 

faculty evaluations, and the results of these are used by the academic departments on the campus of Fort Hays State University 

to modify and improve quality and the performance of students 

overseas. Fort Hays State University faculty display principles of 

46

academic freedom and transparency in their teaching, research, 

and discussions with the students in China. Discussions regarding 

learning objectives for degree programs, majors, and individual 

courses have all been given and accepted in an atmosphere of 

transparency. 

China’s new leader, Xi Jinping, has made no secret of his ambitions to revitalize China and increase her influence on the global 

stage, as you have stated earlier, Mr. Chairman. President Xi has 

made it clear that he wants to build an innovative society with 

strong tech firms that compete internationally. Fort Hays State 

University was selected and approved to deliver the first American 

bachelor’s degree to Chinese students on mainland China, and I believe that because of that and because of the strength of our curriculum we are highlighting to China and the students all that is 

great in America. 

The challenges that we have faced have been addressed together 

with our Chinese partners under the auspices of their respective 

education commissions, and we have protected the academic freedom and integrity of our programs. I believe that the greatest outcome of the relationships are our Chinese students’ expanded 

knowledge of the world and the United States. The Chinese students have similar aspirations to those of the U.S. students: To be 

engaged in their communities, to own their own businesses, to be 

successful leaders and role models for their families, and to improve our world. 

Tom Friedman in his book, ‘‘The World Is Flat,’’ writes that students who have the facility of two languages, have a cultural experience in another country, and use technology to communicate 

worldwide are true citizens of the world. They are equipped and 

ready to change the world in a positive way. 

As I conclude, I would like to leave you with some final thoughts. 

From the early days of our Republic, our forefathers recognized the 

value of a widely and highly educated citizenry to the success and 

stability of our Nation. Indeed, we have created a system of public 

and private higher education that is the worldwide standard for 

academic excellence. As an immigrant to this country, sir, I submit 

to you that we, as a Nation, need to go back to those roots. We 

need to return to the guiding principles established by our Founding Fathers that support and deliver a superb education because it 

is essential to the common good. 

This year the Chinese Government mandated that English be a 

required course in middle school. They are committed to educating 

the citizenry to do business in the global marketplace. We need to 

do the same. We need to look beyond our current status and recognize that knowing how to do business in the East, that knowing 

how to do business in the world will be a determining factor in the 

prosperity of our children and the success of our Nation. Fort Hays 

State University stands ready to continue to build bridges that connect and educate our world. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, distinguished Members of 

the House of Representatives. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Martin follows:]

47


95248c-1.eps
48


95248c-2.eps
49


95248c-3.eps
50


95248c-4.eps
51


95248c-5.eps
52


95248c-6.eps
53


95248c-7.eps
54


95248c-8.eps
55


95248c-9.eps
56


95248c-10.eps
57


95248c-11.eps
58


95248c-12.eps
59


95248c-13.eps
60


95248c-14.eps
61

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Martin, thank you so very much for your testimony. And your full statement as well, I think I mentioned this 

earlier, as well as anybody else, will be made a part of the record, 

and anything you want to add to it, any extraneous materials. 

Ms. Cao. 

STATEMENT OF MS. YAXUE CAO, FOUNDER AND EDITOR, 

CHINA CHANGE 

Ms. CAO. Dear Congressman Smith and the members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to speak today about the Chinese Government’s policy on joint higher education ventures, its mechanisms of 

controlling them, the Communist Party’s presence in these ventures, and the regime’s suppression of academic freedom in Chinese 

universities. 

China first set the rules for the joint-venture higher education 

programs in 2003. In 2010, China issued the National Plan for Medium and Long-Term Education Reform and Development that devotes a chapter, Chapter 16 that is, to these ventures. The purpose 

of these joint ventures is to bring the best international higher education resources to China. This includes bringing world-class experts and scholars to China to engage in teaching, research, and 

management, conducting joint research with the best universities 

in the world, all to advance the science and technology, and encouraging foreign universities to use their intellectual property as their 

share of investment in these ventures. 

When entering WTO in 2001, China promised to open its education sector to foreign universities, allowing ‘‘foreign majority ownership,’’ but China has had no intention to deliver that promise. Instead, it set up joint ventures with the Chinese Government being 

the controlling party. The rules stipulate that the board of these 

joint ventures must have a Chinese majority and the president 

must be a Chinese citizen. Courses and textbooks must be filed 

with the authorities. These programs must provide courses known 

as political thought education to the Chinese students. 

The most insidious part of the control mechanism probably lies 

in the finance of these joint-venture universities. It is also the least 

transparent part. Financial dependence on the Chinese Government, even if it is partial, puts foreign universities in the vulnerable position where they may feel the need to conform to China’s 

expectations, not only on the joint-venture campuses, but also on 

home campuses. 

The 2,000 also joint-venture programs in China are mostly focused on advanced technology. Thirty-seven percent of them are engineering, while literature, history, and law are less than 2 percent 

each. 

China is also bringing its quest for knowledge to the U.S. soil. 

Last year, China’s elite Tsinghua University, the University of 

Washington, and Microsoft launched the Global Innovation Exchange Institute in Seattle that focuses on technology and design 

innovation. In the Chinese press this institute was described as, 

‘‘An important step in the milestone of Tsinghua University’s international strategic deployment.’’ China is seeking to invest in the research triangle in North Carolina and also establish innovation 

62

platforms elsewhere in the U.S. with Chinese investment and the 

research expertise from American universities. 

Another component of China’s strategy is theft. Reports on this 

abound. For example, in May, Penn State University disclosed that 

its engineering school had been invaded by Chinese hackers for 

more than 2 years. Penn State develops sensitive technology for the 

U.S. Navy. 

China’s intentions are probably best illustrated in two incidents 

involving UC Berkeley. In November 2014, Peking University gave 

the president of UC Berkeley an honorary professorship, and they 

expressed the desire in ‘‘cooperation’’ on big data processing technology, which has wide applications. Three months later, a labor 

rights center in Guangzhou jointly established by UC Berkeley and 

the Sun Yat-sen University was forced to close as part of a systematic suppression of rights activities and civil society in recent years. 

Reports in the Chinese press confirmed the CCP presence on 

joint-venture campuses as well. From the Ministry of Education’s 

review of joint-venture programs in 2014, I quote:

‘‘Joint-venture universities have established the party committees so that there would be a party organization wherever 

there are party members, achieving the party’s no-blind-spot 

coverage on the grassroots level. Some universities have also 

established the overseas party cells to ensure that the party’s 

work remained synchronized with its work at home when students study abroad.’’

In China’s current political system there has never been academic freedom as understood by Americans, though the level of repression has fluctuated. Since early 2013, a CCP order known as 

Document No. 9 has shut down what little academic freedom was 

enjoyed before. The Christian Science Monitor reported recently 

that professors were fired or pressured to quit their jobs for exposing liberal ideas and teaching them in the classroom. Trips to academic conferences were cut or constrained. Student reading lists 

were vetted for ideological content. On some campuses classrooms 

are monitored by surveillance cameras. 

Over the last 30 years the Communist regime has benefited enormously from the unprecedented transfer of knowledge from Western countries, much of it through joint business ventures and 

through theft of intellectual property. Many such relations have 

soured in recent years and the trend is likely to worsen. Now it 

seems that the Chinese Government is duplicating the successful 

model in higher education while pursuing an agenda to stamp out 

the Chinese people’s demand of freedom. 

I have no problem with the free exchange of knowledge, but I 

have a problem with freely providing knowledge to the Communist 

regime and to strengthen its grip on power. I have a problem with 

our institutions of higher education looking the other way as terrible suppression of freedoms and civil society take place in the 

country. 

On a personal level, for the 3 years I have been an activist of 

human rights in China, all the peoples, I mean all the peoples have 

been in jail now. Some of them left the country for political asylum, 

but almost all of them are in jail. 

63

The U.S.-China relationship for the last 3 years has operated on 

the premise that the U.S. should engage with China, help her grow 

economically, and the economic development will lead to the Chinese Communist Party’s embracing human rights and democratic 

values. Instead, today we have a monstrous combination of state 

capitalism, the kleptocratic marriage of power and money, and the 

broader and harsher suppression of the Chinese people and their 

legitimate demand for political and civil rights. Internationally, we 

are witnessing an increasingly aggressive China, a rising threat to 

the peace and security of the world and a challenge to the existing 

world order. 

One can argue about all the defects of the current order, but I 

assure you with absolute certainty that you do not want a global 

regime set up and dominated by the Chinese Communist Party. 

The CCP has mastered the game of taking advantage of a free society like ours. It is sad to see how easily our universities can fall 

prey to the party’s scheme. It is my wish that American universities are able to see the full picture, where they fit into it, and 

what end they are serving when entering joint ventures with the 

Chinese Government. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cao follows:]

64


95248d-1.eps
65


95248d-2.eps
66


95248d-3.eps
67


95248d-4.eps
68


95248d-5.eps
69


95248d-6.eps
70


95248d-7.eps
71

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much for your testimony and your 

research. 

Let me first begin the questioning first with Mr. Lehman, if I 

could. Is it your testimony that the Chinese Government officials 

have no say whatsoever in hiring, firing, promotion of NYU personnel, including your professors and teachers? 

And when it comes to admissions, how is that determined? For 

example, can a son or a daughter of a dissident be accepted to 

NYU? What is the cost? What is the tuition, fees, and all when you 

add it all up together for an academic year for a student? How 

much of that is paid for by the Chinese Government? I mean, getting to who actually owns NYU Shanghai, is it a partnership where 

51 percent is you or them? We just don’t know on this side of the 

aisle. 

But, again, how much are those student fees and tuition is subsidized by the government? And if they don’t have a say in who is 

admitted to NYU, I mean, do they just give you the money and 

then you decide who it is that comes in? 

I do want to thank you for the invitation offered broadly to Members of Congress. I accept. I would very much like if you could provide me with an invitation to speak on human rights. I would love 

to give a lecture on religious freedom and other human rights 

issues. 

This is my 53rd hearing on human rights in China. I have 

chaired probably close to 500, if not more, human rights hearings 

covering from human trafficking, to forced labor, to issues of every 

kind. The students and professors might find it of some interest. 

So I would hope, if you could extend that to me when we are not 

in session, I and my staff will be there. 

Let me also ask you too, and I know I am throwing a number 

of questions right out first, but how do you vet NYU teachers there 

to ensure that—the Chinese Government, as we all know, is extraordinarily effective in placing people in positions, they do it in 

business all the time, that keep a very sharp eye on others to ensure conformity to what the party wants. How do you ensure that 

the people you are hiring are not agents or people reporting back 

and surveilling both other teachers and others, personnel, as well 

as the students? 

I yield. 

Mr. LEHMAN. So thank you, Chairman Smith, and I will try to 

answer all of the questions. If I miss one of them, please feel free 

to remind me and I will do my best. 

I will start at the end and the beginning, which was the question 

about faculty appointments and how they work. So faculty appointments at NYU Shanghai are the same as they are at NYU New 

York. That is to say, they are led by a provost on our campus, who 

is Joanna Waley-Cohen, who is seated behind me today. She was 

the chairman of the History Department at NYU for many years. 

She was on the NYU faculty for decades before coming to NYU 

Shanghai. 

The process is, we announce that we are holding a search. It is 

a global search, and the search is for the best people in the field. 

The searches are done by discipline. Because we are starting out, 

we don’t have a large established faculty in Shanghai, and so we 

72

rely on faculty from NYU’s campus in New York to help us to conduct the search. And the search is all on the academic merits. 

It is a very rigorous and extensive process. Potential faculty 

members’ publications are reviewed by the search committee. A 

small group of finalists are then brought in to give what are called 

job talks, where they have to give a lecture, effectively conduct a 

class in the way that they should, and then ultimately offers are 

extended. 

You can see from Appendix 1 to my testimony the list of the people who are teaching at NYU Shanghai. They are extraordinarily 

distinguished people. They did their academic training at the finest 

universities in the world. They did postdocs at the finest universities in the world. We also have visiting faculty from New York 

who are members of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academic of Arts and Sciences. This is an extraordinary group 

of faculty. People who have held endowed chairs at institutions like 

Cornell and Northwestern University have come to teach with us. 

The Communist Party has no say, the Chinese Government has 

no say, no voice in this process at all. East China Normal University, which is the partner to NYU in this process, has no voice in 

this process. Our graduates get degrees from New York University. 

They get degrees from the trustees of New York University. They 

do not get degrees from East China Normal University. So NYU is 

responsible for the education that they receive and the quality that 

they receive. 

In terms of the admissions process, again, it is completely controlled by NYU. The process is complex. So half of our students 

come from China and the other half come from the rest of the 

world. 

Mr. SMITH. And that is what, about 2,000? What is the number 

that you will build out to? 

Mr. LEHMAN. When we are full grown, it will be 2,000 undergraduates. That is to say, 500 per year, 251 from China in each entering class, 249 from the rest of the world. In the startup period, 

we have had only 300 students in each entering class, so 151 from 

China, 149 from the rest of the world. 

The students who apply from the rest of the world follow a process that is the same as for NYU New York, NYU Abu Dhabi, the 

common application, they submit essays. They indicate which campus they would like to go to, and they are free to select Shanghai 

or New York or Abu Dhabi or any two or all three as their preferences, and they can rank what their preferences are. The process 

is a little bit more intensive than it is in New York because we are 

small. So our admissions office in New York is able to actually conduct video interviews with finalists who are applicants in New 

York. 

Mr. SMITH. Can I ask you, while you are answering, can a Falun 

Gong practitioner be admitted to NYU and also be hired as a professor? 

Mr. LEHMAN. Sure. I mean, they could. 

Mr. SMITH. Do you have any? 

Mr. LEHMAN. No, we don’t have any. I don’t know that we have 

received any. We don’t ask people about their religious preferences 

when they apply for application. 

73

Mr. SMITH. But you believe you would be free enough that if a 

Falun Gong practitioner said, ‘‘This is my expertise,’’ has the academic gravitas to take on that position, you would be able to do it? 

Mr. LEHMAN. Yeah. If they were the most qualified applicants we 

could hire them, absolutely. 

Mr. SMITH. But is there any fear of self-censorship where you believe that could hurt your standing with the government? You 

would have no such concerns? 

Mr. LEHMAN. We came on a condition, and the condition was that 

NYU would be NYU. And the government said: Good, that is what 

we would like. If they were to change their mind, then we would 

leave. But so far, so good. 

So as the other witnesses have testified, China is a constantly 

changing place. And it is as Mr. Daly testified right now, there are 

mixed signals all around us. We hear different voices all the time. 

And so we don’t know what tomorrow will be like. But I would be 

very surprised if the government of Shanghai were to say: Well, 

sorry, we don’t want you anymore. But they could. That is their 

prerogative. Conversely, they could try to go partway and say: 

Well, we want you, but you can’t have academic freedom. And if 

they did that, then NYU would leave. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, can I ask you then in followup, there was a letter dated September 3—I am sure you have seen it—2013 to the 

NYU Board of Trustees signed by five members of the faculty, including Andrew Ross, the president of NYU AAUP, and they wrote, 

‘‘We are obliged to record some grave concerns expressed by our 

members about the prospects of academic freedom in China and at 

the new campus.’’

They speak to the seven silences and whether or not those—and 

I mentioned in my opening universal freedoms, press freedom, and 

the like—would be able to be spoken about, discussed, inquiry in 

an unfettered way. And they also said how concerned they were, 

and this is their words: ‘‘Under such circumstances, self-censorship 

of instructors and students is certain.’’ They didn’t say it is a probability, they said it is certain. How do you respond to that? 

Mr. LEHMAN. Well, they are entitled to their opinion, but that 

opinion is not correct. That letter was written just as we were 

starting to begin teaching, and I think it was perhaps appropriate 

at that time for them to have had some concerns about how things 

would play out. But as things have played out, we have enjoyed full 

academic freedom on our campus. 

And so I don’t know all five, I don’t recall all five of the signatories to that letter, but certainly one faculty member from New York 

who was quite vocal in expressing her concerns about how things 

would play out in Shanghai has talked with us and has gone back 

and told people: No, there is academic freedom, absolutely, at NYU 

Shanghai. 

I would actually direct your attention, there is a blog published 

by a professor called PrawfsBlawg, and in it there was a submission by a member of our faculty who talked about his course at 

NYU Shanghai. He is a member of the law school faculty at NYU 

New York, and he was visiting with us. 

And in his course, he says, in response to something that he had 

read: ‘‘I could not speak for anyone else at NYU Shanghai, but I, 

74

myself, am teaching exactly what I want with the usual lack of 

oversight enjoyed by any professor teaching at NYU in Washington 

Square,’’ in his course. ‘‘As an example of my unhindered freedom, 

my course requires the students to compare U.S. and Chinese constitutional rules and concepts, and as background for this comparison I assign so-called ‘sensitive’ documents such as the infamous 

Document Number 9.’’

This is the kind of classroom that we have at NYU Shanghai 

today. And I do believe it is important that we have classrooms like 

this in order to be true to our mission as NYU. 

Mr. SMITH. Just so I am totally clear, it is your testimony that 

the seven taboos or seven silences—universal values, press freedom, civil society, citizens’ rights, criticism of the Communist Party’s past, neoliberal economics, and independence of the judiciary—

can all be taught in an unfettered way on your campus without any 

fear of retaliation? That is what happening? 

Mr. LEHMAN. That is my testimony. It is absolutely true. That 

is the case. And I should say, one of the interesting points about 

the seven taboos—and this is just an example of how complicated 

China is today—one of them I think that you mentioned is on 

neoliberal economics as a banned topic. If you go in Shanghai to 

the Tsinghua book store and look, you will see a display of two of 

the most prominent books right now there, and one of them is the 

speeches of Xi Jinping, and the other one, next to it, is a Chinese 

translation of a book by Professor Ned Phelps called ‘‘Mass Flourishing.’’

Professor Phelps is a professor at Columbia University. He won 

the Nobel Prize in Economics. And ‘‘Mass Flourishing’’ is about the 

way in which modern capitalism is essential to enabling humans 

to flourish in a society that values what he calls vitalism. That is 

Shanghai today. 

And so, yes, on the one hand, there are these seven taboos—

never given to us, never given to NYU Shanghai, I should say, but 

I have heard about them. I have never seen them. But I seen them 

referred to widely. So there is that document out there. 

And I should say Premier Li Keqiang has spoken about Mr. 

Phelps’ book and has spoken about its importance. Premier Li 

Keqiang gave a talk in February in which he talked about Adam 

Smith’s ‘‘Theory of Moral Sentiments’’ and it is importance to their 

thinking about how the economy should develop. 

There are mixed signals everywhere in China today. We at NYU 

Shanghai operate consistent with our principles and no one has 

told us not to. 

Mr. SMITH. Not to belabor the point, but how much of a student’s 

cost, total costs are borne by the government? And does that have 

any impact as to how you bring students in, admit students into 

the school? 

Mr. LEHMAN. Sure. So the tuition for NYU Shanghai is the same 

as the tuition at NYU in New York. It is about $45,000 per year. 

Mr. SMITH. Is that in keeping with other colleges or universities 

in China? Is that parallel to or far in excess of? 

Mr. LEHMAN. You mean other Chinese universities? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

75

Mr. LEHMAN. Wildly in excess. Wildly in excess of what it is. And 

I believe that that is reflected in the nature of the education that 

we provide. The kind of education we provide is very labor intensive and it is very expensive. And I believe that it is actually reflected in the difference in the quality of the education that we provide. 

Now, that level of tuition would be unaffordable to many of the 

best Chinese students. And therefore one of the important conditions of opening NYU Shanghai was that there be a subsidy from 

the government of Shanghai that would enable Chinese students to 

pay 100,000 Renminbi per year, which is about $17,000, instead of 

$45,000. So that works out to about a $28,000 per-student subsidy 

for all Chinese students, not only ones——

Mr. SMITH. Who actually pays that, the central government or 

the Shanghai——

Mr. LEHMAN. Shanghai, city of Shanghai. 

Mr. SMITH. City of Shanghai. 

Mr. LEHMAN. City of Shanghai. 

And so if you look at the overall structure of our budget, as I 

said, NYU Shanghai is a tub on its own bottom. So no profits are 

distributed to NYU in New York and no subsidy is demanded from 

New York. Our budget is self-contained. 

So when we are full grown, when we have 2,000 undergraduates, 

the plan for the budget is that about 60 percent of the total cost 

of operating the campus will come from tuition, about 25 percent 

will come from government subsidy, and of which about 14 of that 

25 percent is going to be going to financial aid for Chinese students. 

Mr. SMITH. Again, the tuition would be 60 percent. A large part 

of that is from the government as well, so——

Mr. LEHMAN. No, no, no. The 60 percent is what is sometimes referred to as sticker price tuition. So that is tuition. Financial aid 

reduces that cost for—is part of the expenditures against which 

that operates. 

So another way to think about it, I guess, would be to say the 

total budget will be about $200 million a year. About $60 million 

of that, $55 million of that, will be going to financial aid. So that 

means there is about $145 million left for operating costs. So I am 

talking about percentages of the $200 million. 

About 60 percent of that $200 million comes from tuition, about 

25 percent will come from government, and the last 15 percent will 

come from private philanthropy, and to the extent we operate executive education programs that are able to produce net surplus, that 

will be part of the last 15 percent. 

Mr. SMITH. Just one final question on the admissions. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. Are the students the children of the elite, are they 

just any child, any young person, I should say, who aspires and has 

the academic credentials to make it? And when the decisions are 

made by your local board, are there Chinese nationals on that 

board who are influencing this or is it done exclusively by NYU 

coming out of New York? 

Mr. LEHMAN. Exclusively by NYU. 

Mr. SMITH. New York, I mean. 

76

Mr. LEHMAN. NYU New York. I mean, we have local staff. 

Mr. SMITH. But my question is about the vetting before. Who are 

the local staff? I mean, how do you know they are not clandestinely 

part of the government apparatus? 

Mr. LEHMAN. Well, I could be wrong, I suppose. I mean, I am not 

experienced at spotting——

Mr. SMITH. I mean, to shell out $28,000, you would think the 

government would want to have a main say in who it is that gets 

admitted. 

Mr. LEHMAN. I don’t believe so. The mission here is for us to 

have the best and the brightest in China studying with us. So we 

have students who turned down Peking University, turned down 

Tsinghua University, turned down Fudan, turned down Berkeley, 

turned down Cornell for the opportunity to be a part of this very 

special academic experience. 

The concern both at NYU and, honestly, by the city of Shanghai, was that at $45,000 a year it would simply be a playground for 

children of the rich and that would not be acceptable. So it was 

necessary from the beginning to structure this to make NYU 

Shanghai affordable. Now, some students can’t afford 100,000 

Renminbi either, and so we have need-based financial aid as well, 

in addition to sort of the flat reduction to 100,000 RMB. 

The process, we have thousands and thousands of applicants 

from all across China for these 150 seats. And so the process that 

is followed is they send us their high school grades, their letters 

of recommendations from principals, their essays. And that written 

portfolio is reviewed first by our staff in Shanghai, then by our 

staff in New York, and a group of about 500, the top 500, are invited to come to our campus for what we call Candidate Day. 

And in Candidate Day, they are in batches of 125. They have 

one-on-one interviews with us. They have sample classes. They 

write essays. We want to be sure that they are ready to study in 

the kind of academic environment that we provide, that their 

English is good enough. And after that Candidate Day process, we 

then identify the top 150 or so, to whom we extend conditional offers of admission. 

Now, the condition is that they then have to take this Chinese 

examination known as the gaokao, which I am sure you are familiar with, which is the national admissions exam in China. They 

then have to score in the top tier on the gaokao in order for their 

offer of admission actually to be effective. Almost all of them do, 

but every year, unfortunately, some of them do not. 

This process, I will say, Chairman Smith, I have complete confidence in. It is not an ideological screen. It is not controlled by the 

government. You asked me to speculate why the government would 

give us money to subsidize this if they don’t get to control admissions. 

Mr. SMITH. Or even influence. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Or even influence admissions. I will give two partial answers to that. 

Most of our financial aid in the United States in American universities is underwritten by donors, by private philanthropists who 

make gifts, and that accounts for the ability to give financial aid. 

And the question is, why do they make these gifts if they don’t get 

77

to influence who they are supporting? And the idea is there is a 

sense that you are doing good if you are opening up access on the 

basis of merit rather than on the basis of financial capacity. And 

I honestly believe that that is a big part of the motivation here. 

Separately, I would say, because we are so small, if there were 

ways for the government to influence who came, to say, okay, there 

is a special side door for children of privilege, that would destroy 

our reputation in China immediately. I mean, word would get 

around in a flash. The social media in China today are an unbelievably powerful force. Mr. Daly spoke about the comments, about 

Minister Yuan’s comment, alleged comment. And I think everyone 

in China knows that this is all very, very visible. 

And so, again, we haven’t received that kind of effort to influence 

yet, but if it were to come, we will be vigilant. 

Mr. SMITH. Can I ask you, Dr. Martin, did you receive that kind 

of subsidy or anything close to it? 

Ms. MARTIN. No, sir. Our program is a little bit different, obviously, because it is an undergraduate program conducted at two 

universities. Sias University, as I shared earlier, is a private university, whereas SNU is a public university. Normally students 

who come to the campuses pay for their degree. 

As you know, there are two types of students in China: Those 

who are termed planned, which as was stated earlier, achieve a 

certain high percentage in the gaokao examination, and then those 

who are unplanned, which means that they did not fall within the 

auspices of those examinations. 

The planned students are subsidized normally by the government, whereas the unplanned are not. And so for many who are 

unplanned students at the private universities, the education and 

the degree that they obtain through the courses and the program 

at Fort Hays State University is their only chance to have access 

to an education in China. 

Mr. SMITH. Any of our distinguished witnesses, if you want to 

chime in or speak out on anything you hear, please. 

Yes, Ms. Cao. 

Ms. CAO. I just want to add a few points, because I was the one 

who did this research on ‘‘NYU Shanghai: What’s the Deal,’’ in February. So I know a few things from—almost all my sources are 

from the Chinese language sources when I posted this, and several 

NYU faculties wrote me thinking it is very, very helpful, and the 

fact that they knew it is a joint venture, but what it means really 

was lost to most of the faculty members at the NYU here. 

Now, just pick Professor Lehman’s comments. I want to point 

out, at least at the early stage, at least that, that may or may not 

be the case now, that at least at the very early stage, NPR, when 

the Shanghai campus opened in 2013, right, NPR had the article, 

interviewed a half-dozen also American students, all of them received generous tuition from NYU Shanghai. And some were even 

paid with their plane tickets. 

So where does that money come from? All of them were given 

huge tuition fees that cost—let me read from the original NPR report—that one of the students was offered a deal worth $228,000. 

That is huge. And, quote from the NPR report, ‘‘The half dozen othVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:25 Sep 29, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\062515\95248 SHIRL
78

ers with whom NPR spoke said that they got either generous discounts or free tuitions.’’ So that is one comment I want to make. 

Another comment is about the philanthropy part of NYU Shanghai. There was an article I found in Chinese that described this 

newly found foundation called the Education Development Foundation at the NYU Shanghai. NYU President Sexton referred to the 

three distinguished people on this foundation, and I was amazed to 

find that two of them were high-ranking Chinese party officials, retired. 

And these are officials, in the Chinese culture parlance, they are 

called the tui ju er xian de guan bu, which means, ‘‘Communist 

cadres working on the second front,’’ meaning that they work in the 

nongovernment sector to exert government control. 

So I just find the word ‘‘philanthropy’’ is misleading in here because of exactly where does the money come from? It could still 

come from the government, even it is labeled as fundraising philanthropy. I don’t know. I am just saying because this foundation is 

led by former high-ranking officials. One of them was a former 

member of the CCP Central Committee. That is very, very high 

ranking. I mean, you have what, 1,000, a few hundred CCP Central 

Committee members across the country? 

And also just on a more playful note, the Chinese elite privileged 

kids, guess what? They don’t want to go to NYU Shanghai. They 

all come here, to Harvard, to Princeton, to UPenn, and they come 

here. So that is my comment. 

Mr. SMITH. If I could, Mr. Lehman, maybe ask you another question, whether or not discussions about—and, Dr. Martin, this would 

be to you as well and any others who would like—can there be a 

robust discussion about the Dalai Lama? 

I led the congressional effort to nominate Liu Xiaobo, Chen 

Guangcheng to get the Nobel Peace Prize, went there when they 

had the big, empty chair, which is one of the most heartbreaking 

scenes ever. And of course Liu Xiaobo’s wife is not doing very well, 

and she is under a kind of house arrest. 

Here is a Nobel Peace Prize winner. We are going to hold another hearing on Liu Xiaobo very soon to try to keep the focus on 

a Nobel Peace Prize winner who is languishing in prison. And my 

question would be, can you discuss his work? Can you do it? Dr. 

Martin, as well, and Mr. Daly, do you want to speak this, or anyone else? 

And, again, in an unfettered way, because the crackdown there 

was so complete they even threatened the Nobel Peace Prize Committee and the host country for having the audacity to raise his 

issue, as they did so well in nominating him or selecting him. 

Let me also ask with regards to religious freedom, can Bible 

studies exist? Can, again, Falun Gong practitioners engage in their 

spiritual exercise on campus? 

Internet freedom. We know how the Internet is absolutely 

abridged by the great China firewall that is in place. So, again, 

your students—I am not sure there is much anyone can do about 

that except if we keep the pressure on worldwide—but they are 

getting a very filtered set of facts and information via the Internet. 

But let me ask you as well, in 1983, 1984, I offered the first 

amendment that passed the U.S. House of Representatives on the 

79

greatest human rights violation of women’s rights ever, in my opinion, and that is the egregious one-child-per-couple policy that 

makes brothers and sisters illegal. It requires forced abortion by 

policy. There has been talk since 1985 that it is relaxing, and it 

never seems to bear fruit. It is usually proffered for international 

consumption and to garner a headline somewhere that somehow 

they are relaxing the policy. 

And, frankly, with the implosion that is imminent in China because of the missing girls, we had a hearing just a few weeks ago, 

and the number of missing daughters is incalculable. It might be 

as many as 100 million or more, leading to sex trafficking and a 

disproportionality of males to females that is causing huge problems for the country. Hopefully, the government realizes their selfinterest in eliminating such a ban on children, making children illegal. 

I asked in this room the head of the Foreign Affairs Committee, 

when she was visiting with a delegation from China, how they deal 

with the fact that 600 women per day commit suicide, nowhere else 

in the world is female suicide more than male, except China, and 

the fact that there is such a terrible, terrible toll and a lot of it. 

We don’t know how much. 

But that comes for the Centers for Disease Control—theirs, not 

ours. They challenged my number. We brought down the facts and 

figures and she walked out. That was the end of that conversation. 

That is a loss of women’s lives that is, again, unparalleled anywhere else in the world, 600 per day. 

My question would be, with regards to the one-child-per-couple 

policy, and Dr. Martin as well, in one of my trips to China I asked 

a number of businesses whether or not they were implementing the 

one-child-per-couple policy, whether or not workers can snitch—and 

that is the word they used—on a women who is pregnant without 

the birth permitted coupon and authorization given by the government. And most of the businesses told me yes. These were American businesses. Some didn’t know what I was talking about, but 

those that did said: Sadly, it is part of Chinese law and we follow 

it. 

And I am wondering what happens to an unwed mother, one of 

your students—and again they are not even allowed one child, all 

unwed mothers are compelled to abort or face ruinous fines—what 

is the university or the college’s response to that? Are you in any 

way complicit in enforcing the one-child-per-couple policy? Do you 

have a health clinic? 

My hope is that you are in no way involved, directly or indirectly. 

But what is the case with regards to that? 

Mr. LEHMAN. So we are in no way involved. We have a clinic on 

campus. It is a health and wellness area. It is very popular with 

our students. The mission of the health and wellness clinic is not 

to enforce the one-child policy. We are not charged with enforcing 

or implementing the one-child policy. 

Mr. SMITH. But if a woman is or a young student is pregnant, 

how does that get—I mean, we have had—we have worked—I have 

worked personally, as well as my staff, on many cases of women 

who had a second-order baby, including talking to the Ambassador, 

80

travelling to Beijing, just to say: Please, cease and desist, don’t kill 

that baby simply because the authorization wasn’t given out. 

What does the clinic do? Do they inform government officials? Do 

they try to hide it? 

Mr. LEHMAN. So our clinic does not provide abortion services. To 

my knowledge, none of our students have gotten pregnant. If one 

of our students got pregnant, we would have absolutely no role in 

enforcing the one-child policy. We are not an arm of the government, Chairman Smith. We are a university. 

Mr. SMITH. I understand. But my hope would be that you 

wouldn’t—I mean, that woman is immediately at risk, and she will 

be forcibly to be aborted. And a student, obviously marriages are 

not even allowed to occur until 25. I read your Statement of Labor 

Values. You have a section on protecting women’s rights. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. You do put in provided by PRC law should be protected, talking about pregnancy, childbirth. But, again, the dark 

side of Chinese law when it comes to women and children is—one 

of them—is this terrible one-child-per-couple policy. 

If you could check to see what happens if a woman presents, 

same with Dr. Martin, so that we are no way complicit. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MIRTA M. MARTIN, PH.D., TO QUESTION ASKED

DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

Fort Hays State University (FHSU) has partnerships with one public and one private University in China. Faculty are hired by FHSU to teach in China on the campus of the partner Universities. As such, they are FHSU employees and they are 

responsible only to FHSU. They have no reason to report any situation to Chinese 

authorities.

Mr. LEHMAN. I will certainly check, Chairman Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Because that is, you know, there is a child’s life and 

a mother’s life at risk. 

Mr. LEHMAN. I will check and confirm that we are in no way 

complicit.

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MR. JEFFREY S. LEHMAN TO QUESTION ASKED

DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

I have double checked and, as I testified, there is no requirement that NYU 

Shanghai report pregnancies to Chinese officials.

Mr. SMITH. That would be very good. I appreciate that. 

Ms. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, unlike NYU, of course, you realize 

that Fort Hays State University partners with the institutions. So 

the program is owned in its totality by the institution, but it is delivered on a host campus, so to speak. So there are other students 

on that campus. As a matter of fact, Sias International University 

has about 30,000 students on its campus, and only a very small minority of those students are actually part of the program. 

So to the extent that the communications take place within our 

faculty and our students, their ability to discuss anything has 

never been an issue. The scholarship, their willingness and ability 

to discuss things, as you have discussed, from the Bill of Rights all 

the way up to more sensitive issues, have never met opposition by 

any of the government. 

81

And to that extent, one of the things that we feel very privileged 

to be able to do is to expand the mind of the students. I said to 

somebody the other day: If you understand why people do what 

they do and you understand the human nature of people, then you 

are able to put them in context and not judge them as bad or good, 

but rather create a system whereby you can expand your view of 

the world. And that is what our faculty try to do in China, and 

they do it very well. 

And addressing your statement about spiritual or religious freedom, they are very well able to practice their religion. Clearly there 

is not a Catholic church that they can go into in their neighborhood, but they are able to practice their religion within their own 

homes. 

Mr. SMITH. Before going to Mr. Sherman, I do have some other 

questions that I will finish with. But under number five, protecting 

women’s rights, NYU’s Statement of Labor Values, it says: ‘‘Women’s rights during pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing period will be 

protected as provided by PRC law.’’

That is the problem, the PRC law, which is outrageously unethical, immoral, and out of any human rights norms, even according 

to U.N. principles, Cairo Population, ICPD, or anything else, because it is forced, it is coerced. And so what does that mean, ‘‘as 

provided by PRC law,’’ in your statement? 

Mr. LEHMAN. I wasn’t part of the drafting of that, but my understanding, at least the way I understand it, is under Chinese law, 

after you give birth you are entitled to paid leave. And I don’t 

know, I think it may be 4 months. And so I think this is guaranteed paid leave. 

Mr. SMITH. But it does say during pregnancy as well. PRC law 

during pregnancy makes that child at the gravest risk of extermination at any time during their life on the planet. 

Mr. LEHMAN. I believe, Chairman Smith, that that provision is 

intended—I think it is framed in terms of protecting the rights of 

the woman, I believe. And so I think what that is intended to do 

is to say to the extent that Chinese law creates a floor under the 

rights of the woman, those will absolutely be respected. And that 

is not only by NYU Shanghai, but by anyone who deals with NYU 

Shanghai. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. But, again, we are talking the rights of the 

women here would be coercive population control, including forced 

sterilization and forced abortion, which is so egregious, at Nuremberg, at the Nazi war crimes tribunal, it was construed to be a 

crime against humanity, which it is. Twice the U.S. Congress has 

called it a crime against humanity. 

So my point is, if you could clarify that for us, what do you mean 

by that? Because if it just means enforcing—and this is what I 

have gotten from many businesses operating in China, it is what 

we got from Google when we talked about the issue of censorship, 

a different issue, of course, that they were just following law as 

promulgated by the PRC. 

Mr. LEHMAN. So the point of the Statement of Labor Values, and 

it is comparable to the one that I believe was praised by Human 

Rights Watch as it was applied in Abu Dhabi, the point of this is 

to ensure that workers on projects associated with NYU Shanghai 

82

have their labor rights respected and enforced. And you are pointing at number five. I believe it is 13 paragraphs. Is that right? 

Mr. SMITH. Fourteen. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Fourteen paragraphs of rights in different areas. 

And the point is to say that in each of these areas, including worker safety, including guarantees that they will be paid, that their 

rights will be respected and enforced. Because sometimes, as you 

know, in many countries, including in China, there will be times 

when there are rights on paper that are not respected. 

Mr. SMITH. But it is precisely at the workplace where the onechild-per-couple policy is implemented. So whether these be contractors or whatever, that is the point of contact where they have 

their greatest means of compliance, and that is where the snitches 

come in, fellow workers, who are rewarded or penalized if they do 

not bring to the attention of the family planning cadres that so and 

so is pregnant without being given the ability—without getting the 

authorization from the government. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Yes, Chairman Smith, I understand that. We will 

get back to you. 

Mr. SMITH. So that would be both from the worker’s point of 

view, as well as from the student’s. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Exactly. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

I would point out that while fining a woman for having a child 

seems a deprivation of human rights, Mr. Lehman points out that 

in other cases China provides 4 months of paid leave. A woman 

seeking 4 months off in the United States faces a fine equal to 4 

months pay. 

Mr. SMITH. Not everywhere. Not in New Jersey. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, everywhere in the United States there is no 

paid maternity—there is paid maternity leave in New Jersey? 

Mr. SMITH. State government. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Oh, if you are an employee of the State government. Okay. Well, the vast majority of my constituents are not employees of any government, and it is good to see that the State is 

generous to its own employees. It would be nice to see how we can 

work that out for all employees. 

Let’s see. Mr. Lehman, if one of your students is sitting in your 

library in Shanghai and they Google ‘‘Tiananmen Square 1989,’’ 

and they do it on Google.com, what do they see? Do they see what 

I see or do they see what everybody else in Shanghai sees? 

Mr. LEHMAN. They see what you see. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So you get around the Great Firewall of China? 

Mr. LEHMAN. We are part of NYU’s global network. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Gotcha. 

Mr. LEHMAN. And so in order for us——

Mr. SHERMAN. Let me move on. 

Ms. Lawrence, first, thank you so much for all the guidance you 

provide to my staff and myself. Second, how much money is China 

throwing into these Confucian Institutes here in the United States 

or otherwise in order to give free services, professorial and otherwise, or cash to U.S. universities? Is this a big thing? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. I am afraid I don’t have a number. I could——

83

Mr. SHERMAN. I mean, are there a dozen or several dozen professors fully paid by the Chinese Government here in the United 

States? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. My understanding is that usually the Hanban, 

which is the organization in China that manages Confucius Institutes, provides a certain amount of money per Confucius Institute 

to get it set up. And it can be up to, I think, about $500,000, somewhere between $100,000 and $500,000, but I think it depends on 

the university. Robert may have more information there actually. 

Mr. DALY. Well, in addition to those arrangements, you are right, 

the Hanban has also started to propose endowed professorships to 

universities. The test case on this a few years ago——

Mr. SHERMAN. So this would be the chair in——

Mr. DALY. Chair, faculty member. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. These faculty would teach the nine-dash 

line is——

Mr. DALY. No. The test case was in Stanford a few years ago. In 

fact, I testified in 2011 before Congressman Rohrabacher’s committee on this. And there was a fight at Stanford, there was concern because the faculty got a say about the constraints that the 

Chinese side would put either on the specialty of the faculty member or teaching. Stanford won that argument, and they took the 

money for the chair sans conditions, and it was all designed by 

Stanford University, and the money still came through——

Mr. SHERMAN. I know at least one major university has turned 

down the money or pulled out presumably because they didn’t get 

that. 

Mr. Lehman, you suggested that the Federal Government pay 

money to U.S. students at your university and elsewhere. All I can 

say is nice try. This would be basically a lottery ticket in the sense 

that there are 1 million American students that would want it, and 

five or ten would get it, and I am not going to cut cancer research 

in order to send you students. You are going to have to get those 

on your own. 

Let’s see. Ms. Lawrence, Chinese students studying here in the 

United States, are they studying STEM, science and technology, 

engineering, math, or are they studying business? Kind of give me 

a vague breakdown. Humanities versus business, business law 

versus——

Ms. LAWRENCE. Traditionally, the Chinese students coming to 

the United States in the early wave of students came to do graduate study and often were studying STEM subjects, in part because 

they didn’t require such strong language abilities. If you were 

studying mathematics you didn’t have to have incredibly fluent——

Mr. SHERMAN. What do we see now? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. But now we are moving into an era where there 

are many Chinese students now starting to come over actually at 

the undergraduate level too. I was recently in Beijing and hearing 

that one of the best high schools in Beijing——

Mr. SHERMAN. But you may have heard the exchange with Mr. 

Rohrabacher. If they are here learning the technology that will 

strengthen China, that is one thing. If they are here learning 

American values, that is something else. Are they here reading the 

84

works of Chairman Smith on human rights in a humanities course 

or are they here learning how to beat us at technology? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. I think that now the new wave of students who 

are coming not just at the graduate level but now also at the undergraduate level, I think they are starting to study rather more 

diverse subjects than the first wave. 

Mr. SHERMAN. What about the institutes that we are basically focusing on in these hearings, the Chinese campuses of U.S. universities, are they teaching STEM, or are they teaching business and 

law, or are they teaching humanities, or mostly one, mostly the 

other? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. There is a wide range of models for these U.S. 

universities that are operating in China. So NYU Shanghai is one 

model, and it is a joint campus. It is a joint venture between NYU 

and East China Normal University, with East China Normal University as the majority partner, and it is providing a liberal arts 

education. 

The number of joint campuses is very small. There are three U.S. 

universities that have been given this independent legal person 

status, which Vice Chancellor Lehman could explain more what the 

implications of that status are. 

There are only 13 U.S.-partnered institutions that China recognizes and approves as collaborative education institutions, but 

there are more than 100 other U.S. universities that are involved 

in offering degree programs on Chinese campuses. 

And so it kind of varies depending on the model, but I would say 

that the bulk of the degrees that are being offered by U.S. institutions in China, a lot of them are business, engineering degrees, 

some English degrees. There are a few unusual degrees. There is 

one U.S. university that is offering a music degree. There is another U.S. university that is offering a dance degree. But for the 

most part it is more STEM, business. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Chancellor Lehman, if I got you right, you testified that you are not aware of any of your students being pregnant. 

That is the first time a chancellor of a non-all-male university has 

ever said that here in Congress. Obviously then you are not focused 

on that, but the chancellor of UCLA has never said that. 

I will ask Ms. Lawrence first, but perhaps others as well. What 

does the Chinese Government do to insulate the students that it 

sends to the United States from the wrongful influences of those 

who would want to break the pots of the Chinese Communist 

Party? What do they do to prevent the students they send here 

from bringing back American political values? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. The Chinese Government does allow, does encourage a lot of the students now to come and study in the United 

States. There are Chinese student groups on a lot of campuses 

which have very close relationships with the Chinese Embassy, the 

Chinese consulates. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Are they spying on the Chinese students in what 

they are saying and doing? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. I wouldn’t know whether they are spying on 

them, but I think they do coordinate with the Embassy. You see 

when major Chinese leaders are visiting, often there will be groups 

organized by these Chinese student groups to take Chinese stuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:25 Sep 29, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\_AGH\062515\95248 SHIRL
85

dents studying in the U.S. to come and join welcome parades and 

that sort of thing for visiting officials. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Let me ask, Ms. Cao, if someone was interested 

in commemorating the events of Tiananmen Square in 1989, would 

it be wise for them not to cause the Chinese students organization 

described by Ms. Lawrence, take steps so that they wouldn’t be 

aware of that effort? Or would you walk into one of these Chinese 

student groups with a big ‘‘remember Tiananmen’’ badge on and 

feel just comfortable? 

Ms. CAO. You will feel uncomfortable. There is evidence of that, 

there is incidences of that. And the associations of Chinese students and scholars on larger American campuses, like Columbia 

University, MIT, there is strong evidence supporting, showing that 

there is very close cooperation and influence from the Chinese consulates and the Embassies. 

And in the UK, in Cambridge, there was an example—well, I can 

only quote examples that are in the paper, that is how we get to 

know. But I have no reason to assume that was an isolated incident. 

Now, a couple years ago in Cambridge University, the university 

authorities actually cancelled the Chinese student association because of the Chinese Embassy’s influence on who will become the 

president of that association, because these associations are called 

on, for example, when Chinese leaders are visiting, they are called 

on to wave the flags, and they are paid the meal and money to do 

that. And when the Tibetans protest, these students are organized, 

these associations at the behest of the Embassy or consulate are 

going to do the counter protest, things like that. There are a lot of 

incidents like that. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Ms. Lawrence, if you are an agent of a foreign 

government or paid by a foreign government, aren’t you supposed 

to register? I realize that we heard a description of what went on 

in England, but assuming that there are Chinese student organizations being subsidized by and the officers being selected by the Chinese Embassy, should those students be registering as agents of 

the PRC? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. I have to refer you to another branch of CRS 

which handles U.S. domestic law. I focus on China, so I am afraid 

I am not familiar with——

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. Get those folks to give us an answer. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Sure. 

[The information referred to follows:]

86

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MS. SUSAN V. LAWRENCE TO QUESTION ASKED

DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE BRAD SHERMAN


95248f-1.eps
87


95248f-2.eps
88


95248f-3.eps
89


95248f-4.eps
90

Mr. SHERMAN. I don’t know who else——yes, Ms. Cao, you have 

a——

Ms. CAO. Just a few weeks ago, very recently, the Chinese student association at Columbia University was shut down by the university and the reason they gave is that, well, they broke some 

rules. And I recently, just last week, I talked to a Reuters reporter, 

I urged him to dig deeper, because I believe it is likely, very likely 


95248f-5.eps
91

there is something else, not just leaving food after their events or 

something like that. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That is so unusual at an American university. If 

you were to shut down the Albanian students organization at 

UCLA, the whole campus would erupt. 

Mr. Daly, what can U.S. campuses do to ensure that Chinese students are not only protected from this intimidation or observation, 

but are actually encouraged to break the pots of the Chinese Communist Party? 

Mr. DALY. They can do very little directly. There have always 

been organized——

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, let’s back up a little bit. They send the kids 

here to study STEM. Can we require at all our universities, if you 

are here to study STEM, you have to take one or two courses where 

you may read the writing——

Mr. DALY. American universities all have distribution requirements, they have general education requirements. What American 

campuses can do is be American campuses. Where is our confidence? Yes, there are attempts by the consulates and the Embassies to infiltrate Communist Party cells——

Mr. SHERMAN. So you don’t have U.S. universities saying: Hey, 

we really want the Chinese money. We will let students come here. 

We will give them some sort of certificate. They can take nothing 

but math and science. 

Mr. DALY. American universities provide the opportunity, the environment, and all of the stimuli that are the best antidote to everything the Chinese Communist Party is attempting to do. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Unless they are willing to provide programs designed with the interests of the PRC in mind. Are there universities that, regardless of the breadth requirements they have for 

their U.S. students, either have some certificate program or degree 

program designed to teach STEM to Chinese students without exposing them? I see Dr. Martin is saying no. 

I realize no for your own campus. Does that apply to every campus you are aware of? Is there any university in this country that 

is saying: Come here, bring your Chinese dollars, study math and 

science and technology, and you can leave, and you don’t have to 

take a course in politics, humanities, anything like that? 

Ms. MARTIN. Sir, I don’t have the vast knowledge to be able to 

answer. 

Mr. SHERMAN. But have you heard of any such example? 

Ms. MARTIN. However, every single institution of higher education is governed and accredited by a regional accrediting body to 

whom we have to answer. And as such, we provide this accrediting 

body a list of all of our programs and they approve it. Within those 

programs, as was stated earlier, there are the general education 

programs that include your English, your sciences, your mathematics, your humanities, your social sciences. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So there is no certificate somebody can earn without those breadth requirements? 

Ms. MARTIN. A certificate is a specialized series of courses in a 

specific area. And so the answer would be, certainly it could be designed, but I am not aware. It wouldn’t be a degree. 

92

Mr. SHERMAN. Let me just make a comment. I am concerned 

with Chinese money influencing American thought. I think the 

number one problem is the corporate sector where hundreds of billions of dollars are made and lobbyists for the benefit of China descend upon this place and descend upon the media, particularly the 

business cable channels, with an amount of power that far exceeds 

our influence in China. 

I know some of you said we have got the soft power way beyond 

what they do. That is true if you just ignore money, lobbying, and 

the effect of money on cable television and think tanks. If you just 

ignore money and focus only on the academia, then you would say 

that we have got the soft power and they don’t. 

And then finally, as I mentioned, when China controls a big 

chunk of the movie theaters in the United States, they control or 

influence what studios will choose to make, and those of you who 

are looking for a second Gere movie on Tibet will have to look at 

just some movie that is, like, made for cable. It will not be a theatrical run. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for these hearings. I know 

that you have some additional questions. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. 

Ms. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say something. While 

I am not able to speak on behalf of every single institution of higher education as to what course of study they may or may not have 

or what certificate they may or may not have, I believe that I can 

speak on behalf of every institution in this country to the fact that 

the academic integrity of our programs highlight and dictate who 

we are as an academic institution. And speaking for them, and certainly on behalf of Fort Hays State University, no amount of money 

will ever be able to be given to me to sacrifice the name or the 

credibility of my institution or those of higher education in the 

United States. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Just a couple of final questions, and again I thank 

you for the generosity of your time as well this afternoon. 

Mr. Lehman, I am encouraged when you say the seven taboos, 

there is not a concern. I think I am concerned that surveillance can 

be very, very ubiquitous. It could be everywhere. 

When Frank Wolf and I made our way over to the PRC, to Beijing, immediately prior to the Olympics, we brought with us a prisoners list that the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, 

which I chair, had put together, a very extensive list, as you know, 

that really goes to great depth. It is one of the best prisoners lists 

I have ever seen. It is updated constantly, combed to make sure 

that it is accurate. 

And while Congressman Wolf and I were in the Embassy van, it 

is the only time we talked about this, we talked about, kiddingly, 

going to Tiananmen Square, because we were on our way to another meeting, and unfurling a banner that called for human 

rights. Twenty minutes to twenty-five minutes later the U.S. Embassy got a phone call saying that if Smith and Wolf unfurl the 

human rights banner at Tiananmen Square—which was a fiction, 

we were talking to each other, and we did make one phone call in 

which we mentioned it as well—we would be immediately escorted 

93

to the airport or worse, and the Embassy was very concerned. This 

was right before a big showcase Olympics. 

And the ability to embed surveillance equipment and the like in 

the classroom when the Embassy van may have been compromised, 

I don’t know that, but my own and my subcommittee’s computers 

have been compromised at least once and the PRC hacked into 

them. So I am concerned about when someone does go beyond or 

says Tiananmen Square. 

I mean, Chi Haotian, as we all remember, when he came into 

town during President Clinton’s tenure in office, was given a 19-

gun salute. He was the butcher of Beijing, as you know, was the 

operational commander, and then at that point when he was in 

town was the Defense Minister, he said nobody died at Tiananmen 

Square. We put together a hearing 2 days later. We had people 

who were there on the square, including correspondents, and someone from the People’s Daily, who said people died and they died in 

large numbers. 

I mean, the ability of this government in Beijing to do unbelievably nefarious things and to lie in broad daylight, I mean, here he 

was in Washington at the Army War College saying nobody died 

at Tiananmen Square. I thought Mr. Clinton did a terrible thing 

in honoring him. He should have been on his way to The Hague 

for crimes against humanity. But that said. 

So I am concerned, and I completely accept your sincerity and 

the fact that as a very learned man you believe this is the case, 

and I absolutely hope it is true. 

But I do want to ask you a question. The whole episode with 

Chen Guangcheng, and Jerry Cohen was one of my witnesses earlier on, so it is not like I have any animus toward NYU, and I want 

that clear and unmistakable. And we held hearings, like I said, I 

had worked on his case for about 5 years when he first was put 

behind bars. And the way that I was treated, you know, who cares. 

The way Chen was treated was what really concerned me. But 

even as he was flying into Newark International Airport, huge efforts, including Under Secretary Kennedy, who I was on the phone 

with, ensured that I did not meet him at the airport. He was ushered, when he came in, we were at the gate, and I know because 

the man who ran the Port of Authority used to be my intern and 

he couldn’t believe the great lengths and hoops being jumped 

through to ensure that my wife and I were not there at the gate 

to greet him. I thought it was a bit bizarre, frankly. But that said. 

We made our way over to the NYU. I was pushed to the side, 

and I mean literally brought to the side by someone working for 

NYU, and if it wasn’t for Chai Ling yelling, as he got out of the 

van, ‘‘Chris Smith is here,’’ he perked up and walked over to the 

direction of what she said, and I shook his hand, that was the end 

of it, and I was shunted to the side again. 

The meetings that we had with him were always, particularly in 

the early days, and we tried hard to have meetings, they were hostile. And I was bewildered by it, and I mean bewildered. Then I 

heard from Mr. Chen how he repeatedly was admonished, maybe 

threatened, but admonished may be a kinder word, about coming 

to Washington, testifying before our subcommittee. He never got 

the answer from the administration or from anyone else about the 

94

agreement, which it turns out probably was just oral, it was never 

written, with the Chinese Government about looking into his case. 

So more subterfuge there. 

And then when he came down, as I said in my opening before, 

to an event that we suggested with former Speaker Pelosi and 

Speaker Boehner, which I think was a great success, that was 

frowned upon. And then he was told the day after he testified here, 

and it took almost a year to get him here because of these obstacles, that he was gone. 

Whether it be Lech Walesa or Nelson Mandela or any other 

world-class human rights leader, not to treat Chen with that kind 

of—the respect, I mean, if it was my university, you are here for 

as long as you want to be. And he was even told: See what your 

right-wing friends like Smith can do. And thankfully I was able to 

with phone calls within an hour of his ouster, or information about 

his ouster, to set up for him to become part of a three-part sponsorship, including Catholic University of America, the Lantos Foundation, and the Rutherford Institute. 

So it has been a very strange episode. I don’t have the answers 

for it. I read his book. He had concerns about how he was treated, 

especially by the U.S. Government. 

So a very specific question, and it is done in the hopes of just 

clearing the air. Did the PRC officials in any way pressure, advise, 

or convey any message to NYU personnel concerning Chen 

Guangcheng’s case? And if so, how were those messages conveyed? 

And was Chen’s situation perceived by NYU as a threat to NYU’s 

Chinese programs, including at Shanghai campus? 

I know that he was admonished many times not to go into certain directions. I mean, he was incarcerated and tortured, as was 

his wife, because he brought up the one-child-per-couple policy and 

in Linyi tried to defend women who were being horribly abused. 

And to suggest he ought to talk about corruption and rule of law 

generically and esoterically without getting into details was, again, 

mind-boggling. You wouldn’t say to Nelson Mandela: By the way, 

don’t bring up apartheid. You just wouldn’t do it. That is why he 

was singled out for punishment. 

So if you could answer that question, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. LEHMAN. So the simple answer to the question is no. The 

Chinese Government did not attempt to influence NYU’s dealings 

with Mr. Chen. I should say I was in China at the time. I was not 

in New York. No one spoke to me ever. 

Mr. SMITH. But that is just you. I am talking about NYU personnel. 

Mr. LEHMAN. NYU personnel in general, I mean, I will say it 

should be remembered that when Mr. Chen sought refuge in the 

Embassy in Beijing and Harold Koh was there and was working to 

trying find a solution so that he could leave China, to my knowledge NYU was the only university that offered a fellowship to Mr. 

Chen to enable him to leave. Other universities were approached 

and they refused. 

And this was at the time that NYU Shanghai was being negotiated. This was before there was any agreement to create NYU 

Shanghai. And so NYU was not worried about the possibility that 

95

they might lose NYU Shanghai. This was not a motivating factor 

at all. 

Mr. SMITH. With total respect, at that point I agree completely. 

It was as he came here and as his time in the United States began 

to unfold that the pressure seems to have been applied. 

Mr. LEHMAN. I don’t believe there was any pressure applied. I 

have spoken with people who worked with—I have never meet Mr. 

Chen, but I have spoken with people who worked with him. I have 

spoken with people who worked closely with him while he was 

here. None of them ever felt any pressure whatsoever. And I believe, Chairman Smith, if NYU Shanghai was being used as a 

lever, I would have been told. 

Mr. SMITH. Would anybody else like to say anything before we 

conclude? 

Yes. 

Ms. CAO. I just want to quickly make it, because this matters a 

lot, the Internet freedom on these campuses. My research on the 

Chinese sources, my impression is that the situation varies from 

campus to campus. On the campus like NYU Shanghai where you 

have half of the students are American students, it may very well 

be the case that they have free access to Internet. 

But I just read an article on Hong Kong’s Ming Bao that reported 

that on the Shenzhen campus of the Chinese University of Hong 

Kong, the Hong Kong university invested the capability of using 

their own VPN, which is completely free, like on their Hong Kong 

campus, but the university, the students, in the end were not allowed to use the Hong Kong university’s VPN. Instead they have 

a domestic VPN that has the Great Firewall of China. 

So my guess is that from these joint programs their Internet 

freedom probably varies. If the student body is entirely Chinese the 

likelihood is that they won’t have complete Internet freedom. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Again, I want to thank you for your leadership, your generosity. This has been a long hearing. 

And without objection, I would ask that Dr. Dawood Farahi, the 

president of Kean University’s testimony be included in the record. 

We did invite Dr. Farahi to be here. We will invite him again for 

a future hearing. But without objection, his statement will be included in the record. 

This hearing is adjourned, and thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(97)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

98

f


95248n.eps
99

f


95248m.eps
100

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DANA ROHRABACHER, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA


95248g-1.eps
101

f


95248g-2.eps
102


95248h-1.eps
103


95248h-2.eps
104


95248h-3.eps
105

f


95248h-4.eps
106

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


95248i-1.eps
107


95248i-2.eps
108

Æ


95248i-3.eps