China: U.S. Universities in China Emphasize Academic Freedom but Face Internet Censorship and Other Challenges
Published: 2016-08-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2015, the Department of State (State) concluded that academic freedom, a longstanding concern in China, had recently worsened. At the same time, the number of U.S. universities establishing degree-granting institutions in partnership with Chinese universities—teaching predominantly Chinese students—has increased. While universities have noted that these institutions offer benefits, some academics and others have raised questions as to whether faculty, students, and staff may face restricted academic freedom and other constraints.
This report reviews (1) funding and other support provided to U.S. universities to operate in China; (2) the treatment of academic and other key freedoms in arrangements between U.S. universities and their Chinese partners; and (3) the experience of academic and other key freedoms by faculty, students, and staff at selected U.S. universities in China. GAO reviewed 12 U.S. universities that have established degree-granting institutions in partnership with Chinese universities; interviewed and obtained university documents and questionnaire responses; interviewed faculty and students; and visited the campuses of 5 institutions selected on the basis of their location, student demographics, date of establishment, and other factors. GAO also interviewed officials and obtained information from the Departments of Education (Education) and State. GAO makes no recommendations in this report. Education and State had no comments on a draft of this report.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The 12 U.S. universities GAO reviewed generally reported receiving support for their institutions in China from Chinese government entities and universities, with limited funding from U.S. government agencies and other donors. Universities reported contributions from Chinese provincial and local governments and from partner universities for land, building construction, and use of campus facilities. Fewer than half of the universities reported receiving federal funding. Almost all of the U.S. universities said their programs in China generated net revenue for the university or had a neutral impact on its budget.
Universities' agreements with their Chinese partners or other policies that GAO reviewed generally include language protecting academic freedom or indicating their institution in China would adhere to U.S. standards. About half of universities GAO reviewed address access to information, such as providing faculty and students with access to physical or online libraries, though few universities' agreements and policies include language protecting Internet access. About half of the universities' policies include language indicating protection of at least one other key freedom—speech, assembly, or religion.
University members generally indicated that they experienced academic freedom, but they also indicated that Internet censorship and other factors presented constraints. Administrators said they generally controlled curriculum content, and faculty and students said they could teach or study what they chose. However, fewer than half of the universities GAO reviewed have uncensored Internet access. At several universities that lacked uncensored Internet access, students and faculty told us that, as a result, they sometimes faced challenges teaching, conducting research, and completing coursework. Administrators, faculty, and students also cited examples of self-censorship, where certain sensitive political topics—such as Tiananmen Square or China's relationship with Taiwan—were avoided in class, and of constraints faced by Chinese students in particular. Universities approved by the Chinese Ministry of Education as having independent legal status share characteristics—such as campuses located away from their Chinese university partner's campus and extensive student life programs—that may be correlated with greater academic freedom and other key freedoms.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In recent years, a growing number of U.S. universities have partnered  with Chinese universities to establish degree-granting institutions in China  approved by the country’s government. Some observers have noted that  these U.S.-Chinese institutions may offer students a unique international  education experience, enhance research opportunities, and increase  university revenue streams, among other advantages. However, others  have raised concerns that faculty, students, and staff at these institutions  may face restricted academic freedom and other constraints that affect  Chinese universities. In its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices  for 2015, the Department of State (State) concluded that human rights  and academic freedom in China, which have been long-standing  concerns in the country, have worsened in recent years. State’s report  noted that the Chinese government’s restrictions on academic and artistic  freedom at Chinese universities and other Chinese institutions had  continued, that censorship and self-censorship involving politically  sensitive subjects was common, and that the Chinese government denied  visas and took other measures to constrain discourse at Chinese higher  education institutions.
You asked us to review U.S. universities that operate in China. This  report reviews (1) funding and other support provided by the U.S.  government and other sources to U.S. universities to operate in China; (2)  the treatment of academic and other key freedoms in arrangements  between U.S. universities and their Chinese partners; and (3) the  experience of academic and other key freedoms by faculty, students, and  staff at selected U.S. universities in China.
To address these objectives, we reviewed the 12 U.S. universities that we  identified as having partnered with Chinese universities to establish  degree-granting institutions in China. We identified these universities by  reviewing U.S. and Chinese government documents that list U.S.  university institutions and programs in China, by reviewing independent  organizations’ analyses of international higher education partnerships,  and by interviewing university administrators to better understand the  characteristics of their institutions in China. We also developed and  administered to all 12 universities a questionnaire asking for information  on funding and other topics concerning U.S. university institutions in  China. Eleven universities provided detailed responses on the  questionnaire form; one university provided useful narrative responses  but did not answer the questionnaire itself. Therefore, the overall  response rate for the questionnaire was 92 percent.
To identify funding and other support for U.S. universities in China, we  analyzed university responses to our questionnaire, interviewed  administrators from all 12 universities, and reviewed university  documents. We also obtained information and interviewed officials from  the Department of Education (Education) and reviewed relevant federal  laws and regulations, including those related to financial aid under Title IV  of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. To determine the  treatment of academic and other key freedoms —specifically freedoms of  speech, information, assembly, and religion or worship—in arrangements  between U.S. universities and their Chinese partners, we obtained and  reviewed nine agreements between U.S. universities and their Chinese  partners, as well as student and faculty handbooks and other university  policies. To learn about the experiences of academic freedom and other  key freedoms by faculty, students, and administrators at selected U.S.  universities in China, we interviewed administrators from all 12  universities. We also visited five universities in China, selected on the  basis of their location, student demographics, date of establishment, and  other factors, where we interviewed university administrators and faculty;  conducted discussion groups with U.S. and Chinese students; and  reviewed facilities, services, and other aspects of these institutions. In  addition, we interviewed faculty and students who had previously studied  or taught at six of the universities and were currently living elsewhere.  Overall, we interviewed more than 190 faculty, students, and  administrators. For more information on our objectives, scope, and  methodology see appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2015 to August  2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Chinese Ministry of Education requires that U.S. universities seeking  to establish an education arrangement in China partner with a Chinese  university. The Chinese government also requires the U.S. universities to  establish written agreements with the Chinese university defining the  academics, governance, operations, finances, and other key aspects of  the arrangement. The Chinese Ministry of Education reviews each U.S.  university’s written agreement along with other application materials and  authorizes approved universities and their Chinese partners to establish:
Cooperative education institutions: degree-granting institutions that  can be granted independent legal status.
Cooperative education programs: activities take various forms and  can include joint and dual degree programs.
Appendix II provides a complete list of U.S. universities that have been  approved to establish cooperative education institutions and cooperative  education programs in China. As figure 1 shows, the number of U.S.  universities that have partnered with Chinese universities to establish  cooperative, degree-granting institutions has increased since 2011.
Just as the number of U.S. universities operating cooperative institutions  in China has grown, for the past 6 years China has been the leading  country of origin for international college students in the United States,  according to the Institute of International Education, with double-digit  percentage increases in the past 8 years. In academic year 2014-2015,  more than 300,000 students arrived in the United States from China,  representing almost a third of all international students in the United  States.
subsections: section_title: Selected Characteristics of U.S.-China Cooperative Education Institutions
paragraphs: We reviewed 12 U.S. universities that have partnered with Chinese  universities to establish degree-granting institutions in China: six public  universities and six private, nonprofit universities. The curriculum at each  institution is taught in English, with the exception of foreign language  courses.
Additional information about these institutions’ students, faculty, and  degree offerings is as follows.
More than 6,500 total students were enrolled in the 2014-2015  academic year.
Enrollment ranged from fewer than 40 to more than 3,000 students  across the different universities, with about half of the institutions  enrolling between 150 and 900 students.
More than 90 percent of these students are Chinese, and less than 6  percent are U.S. citizens.
About 60 percent of faculty, in the 2014-2015 academic year, were  U.S. citizens, about 16 percent were Chinese, and the remainder  were from other countries.
Universities include both faculty sent from the U.S. universities’ home  campus to teach at the institution in China and faculty hired  specifically to teach at the institution in China.
The 12 universities offer various undergraduate and graduate degrees in  China, including bachelor’s degrees in accounting, business administration, computer  science, engineering, English, finance, graphic design, organizational  leadership, and supply chain management; master’s degrees in computer graphics and animation, engineering,  global health, international studies, management studies, and medical  physics; and a doctorate of engineering.
section_title: Role of the U.S. Government in U.S. Higher Education Arrangements in China
paragraphs: Education and State are involved in different aspects of higher education  arrangements in China. Education provides federal student loans, grants,  and other financial aid each year through programs authorized under Title  IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. U.S. students in  overseas programs are eligible for this federal financial aid under some  circumstances, but Chinese and other non-U.S. students are generally  not eligible.
State supports various international educational grants and scholarships,  some of which apply to U.S. students studying in China. In addition, State  monitors and reports on human rights conditions around the world. State  annually publishes country reports on global human rights practices,  including academic freedom.
section_title: Academic and Other Key Freedoms Related to U.S. Universities in China
paragraphs: State has reported that China’s human rights record, which has been a  long-standing concern, has deteriorated in recent years, with participation  in civil society curtailed and academic freedom on Chinese university  campuses restricted. State’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices  for 2015 reported that Chinese government officials have instructed  professors at Chinese universities to avoid discussing freedom of the  press, civil rights and society, and other subjects, and have cautioned  universities against using textbooks that promote Western values. In  addition, the report notes that the Chinese government has increased  efforts to monitor Internet usage and control Internet content, while also  taking measures to restrict freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly.  The Chinese government regulates the Internet by censoring or restricting  access to many websites, including search engines, news outlets, and  social media.
In April 2016, the Chinese government passed a law regulating the  activities of foreign nongovernmental organizations. According to State,  this new law requires foreign nongovernmental organizations operating in  China to be sponsored by a Chinese organization, to report funding and  event information to the Chinese government, and to report directly to the  Ministry of Public Security. In a letter to the Chinese government, a group  of U.S. universities voiced their concerns regarding a previous draft  version of the law, stating that the draft law was ambiguous in defining  what types of foreign nongovernmental organizations would be subject to  the law. The extent to which the law may impact universities remains to  be determined.
Academics and researchers, among others, have expressed concerns  that, given these conditions, faculty, students, and others at U.S.  universities in China may face constraints to their academic freedom and  other key freedoms. For the purpose of this report, we define these  freedoms as follows:
Academic freedom: includes the ability to teach or study what one  chooses, ask any questions, or freely express views in the classroom.
Freedom of speech: includes the ability to express one’s opinion in  print, video, in person, or through other means without interference.
Freedom of information: includes the ability to access information and  ideas through any medium, including the Internet, libraries, and  databases.
Freedom of assembly: includes the ability to gather with students and  others.
Freedom of worship or religion: includes the ability to practice one’s  religion, read religious texts, and share one’s beliefs.
section_title: U.S. Universities Reported Receiving Support from Chinese Universities and Government Entities, with Limited Support from the U.S. Government
paragraphs: The 12 U.S. universities we reviewed generally reported receiving support  for their institutions in China from their Chinese partner universities and  from Chinese government entities, with limited funding from U.S.  government agencies and private donors. Universities reported  contributions from their partner universities and from Chinese provincial  and local governments for land, building construction, and use of campus  facilities. Almost all of the universities said their institutions in China  generated net revenue or had neutral impact on their budget.
subsections: section_title: Chinese Universities and Government Entities Provided Support to U.S. University Institutions We Reviewed
subsections: section_title: Universities Reported Sometimes Substantial Material Support and Funding from Chinese Universities and Government Entities
paragraphs: The universities we reviewed generally reported receiving material  support and funding from their Chinese partner universities or from  provincial and local governments to help establish and operate their  institutions in China. In interviews and questionnaire responses, most  universities reported being granted land, resources for construction of  new buildings, and the use of the Chinese university’s campus facilities.
The amount of support reported by the universities varied widely and was  in some cases substantial.
One university reported receiving nearly 500 acres of land and a  commitment from the Chinese provincial and local governments to  spend about $240 million for construction and development of  facilities. The U.S. university said its Chinese partners were covering  all direct expenses for the institution, including paying directly for  maintenance, capital expenses, faculty and staff salaries, housing  subsidies, and travel allowances. According to university  administrators, in academic year 2016-2017, the institution in China  will begin reimbursing the U.S. university for curriculum development,  which university officials said could amount to almost $1 million in the  first year.
One university stated that 25 percent of the budget for its institution in  China came from the government of the city where it was located,  including subsidies for Chinese students’ tuition.
Some U.S. universities noted that their institutions in China are  entirely owned and operated by the Chinese universities, which have  assumed financial responsibility, and that the U.S. universities provide  primarily academic guidance to the institutions. One of these U.S.  universities said its Chinese university partner committed to invest  nearly $40 million to construct and equip a new building to house the  institution. Another said that all costs incurred by the U.S. university  during the institution’s establishment—including faculty and staff time  and travel—were covered by the Chinese partner university.
In their questionnaire responses, two universities reported receiving  financial support from Chinese government entities ranging from $1.5  million to over $15 million. Several other universities described the  support provided, including classroom space, campus facilities, and  student scholarships, but they did not report its monetary value. Figure 2  shows examples of facilities at the U.S. universities with institutions in  China.
Three universities also reported receiving nonmaterial support such as  guidance and introductions to contacts in the Chinese government. For  example, one university said its Chinese partner university provided  assistance in obtaining the Chinese government approvals needed to  establish the institution. Another university said the provincial  government’s education bureau provided advice, introductions, and  occasional facilitation support. Finally, two universities said the Chinese  national government provided advice and introductions to help establish  and maintain their institutions in China.
section_title: Funding from Private Sources in China Appears Limited
paragraphs: A few universities told us they received funding from private sources in  China, such as donors, to operate their institutions in China. For example,  one university responding to our questionnaire reported receiving less  than $100,000 from private sources in China in academic year 2014- 2015. Another reported that 15 percent of its China institution budget  came from private philanthropy and programs for executives but did not  specify whether the private sources were U.S. or Chinese. Several  universities said they were not aware of the sources of financial aid that  their Chinese students may have received. A few universities reported  receiving nonmaterial support, such as advice, from Chinese private  sources; one university noted that private individuals in China serve on its  advisory board, and another said several Chinese companies host  students from its institution in China and provide career assistance.
section_title: Fewer Than Half of the Universities Reported Receiving Funding from the U.S. Government
subsections: section_title: Five of 12 U.S. Universities in China Reported that U.S. Students Received Federal Financial Aid
paragraphs: Education does not provide funding or guidance to help U.S. universities  establish institutions overseas, including in China, but U.S. students may  use federal financial aid for their studies in China under some  circumstances, according to Education officials. As figure 3 shows, 4 of  the 12 universities reported in their questionnaire responses the total  amounts of federal financial aid that U.S. students at their institutions in  China received in academic year 2014-2015, ranging from $1,800 to  about $870,000. One additional university said its U.S. students received  federal financial aid, but the university did not report the amount. Most of  the remaining universities reported that only Chinese and international  students are enrolled, with no U.S. students who could be eligible for  federal financial aid.
Two of the universities that reported that some of their U.S. students in  China received federal financial aid from Education also received funding  from the U.S. Agency for International Development and State. The U.S.  Agency for International Development’s Office of American Schools and  Hospitals Abroad provided funds totaling more than $12.5 million over a  number of years to one of the universities for its library, according to  agency officials. In addition, State officials said that although they do not  provide funding to help U.S. universities establish institutions in China, a  small number of their grants may go toward these institutions. For  example, State reported that its Gilman program for undergraduates  funded five U.S. students to study at a U.S. university institution in China  in academic year 2014-2015. In addition, two universities responding to  our questionnaire reported that the U.S. embassy and consulates in  China provided nonmaterial assistance, including advice, introductions,  occasional facilitation support, and career assistance to students.
section_title: Universities Reported Limited Funding from U.S. State Governments and Private Donors
paragraphs: Most U.S. universities we reviewed reported contributing their own funds  and resources to establish and operate their institutions in China, such as  funds to pay for staff time, travel costs, and legal expenses, and material  resources such as classroom equipment. However, although the six  public universities we identified as having institutions in China receive  ongoing state funding for their domestic campuses, most of these  universities told us they require their institutions in China to be self- sufficient and not rely on state government resources. For example, one  public university said its board of governors approved the use of state  funds to establish the China institution with the understanding that all  funds used would be reimbursed, and the university reported that the  initial investment has been recaptured several times over. Another  reported that its institution was funded strictly through tuition and fees  paid by students in China. Nonetheless, two universities reported  receiving some funding from their respective state governments in  academic year 2014-2015.
Four universities reported receiving funding for their institutions in China  from U.S. private sources in academic year 2014-2015, including for  financial aid. One university reported receiving more than $1 million from  these sources, and another stated that 15 percent of its China institution’s  budget came from private philanthropy and programs for executives. A  few of these universities also noted that U.S. private sources provided  nonmaterial support such as advice and student career assistance,  including internships and job recruitment.
section_title: Almost All Universities Reported Their China Institutions Generated Net Revenue or Had Neutral Impact
paragraphs: Half of the universities we reviewed reported that their institutions in  China generated, or they expected them to generate, net revenue for the  U.S. university. Of these, four universities reported that on net, their  institutions in China had provided funds to the U.S. university. Two  additional universities reported that they expect net gains in future years.  However, some universities noted that they did not view the net gains as  profits. As one university explained, it did not consider its institution in  China to be a moneymaking operation because it reinvests net revenue in  its programs in China rather than in its campuses in the United States. In  addition, four other universities said their institutions in China had neutral  impact on their budgets.
Of the 12 universities we reviewed, only 1 university reported that its  campus in the United States provided net revenue to its institution in  China to cover, for example, ongoing programmatic and oversight costs  to ensure quality and architectural standards during construction. Officials  said that the university agreed to proactively invest in its institution in  China to ensure that it conformed to university standards and ensure its  success. As such, officials considered these expenses to be worthwhile  investments. Figure 4 shows the reported impact of U.S. universities’  institutions in China on the universities’ budgets.
Almost all of the universities that responded to our question about student  tuition said it was an important source of revenue for their institutions in  China, and several said their China institutions relied on tuition to a  greater extent than their programs in the United States. The extent of  reliance on tuition varied. Some universities said their China institutions’  operating budgets were entirely or almost entirely supported by tuition,  while another university stated that about 60 percent of its budget came  from tuition.
section_title: Agreements between U.S. and Chinese University Partners and Other Policies Generally Outline Protections for Academic Freedom, but Fewer Address Internet Access or Other Freedoms
paragraphs: Most U.S. universities we reviewed include provisions in written  agreements with their Chinese partners or other policies intended to  uphold academic freedom or U.S. academic standards. In addition, we  found that a few universities’ written agreements and other policies  include language indicating that the members of the university community  will have access to information, which may suggest protections for  Internet access, while about half include language addressing access to  physical and online libraries. About half of the universities that we  reviewed address at least one of the freedoms of speech, assembly, and  religion or worship in university policies.
subsections: section_title: Most Universities Include Provisions Intended to Uphold Academic Freedom or U.S. Academic Standards in Their Written Agreements or Other Policies
paragraphs: Most universities we reviewed include language in their written  agreements or other policies that either embody a protection of academic  freedom or indicate that the institution in China will adhere to academic  standards commensurate with those at their U.S. campus. Table 1  displays the extent to which the written agreements or other policies of  universities in our review include language related to protections of  academic freedom for their institutions in China.
Six universities in our review include language in either their written  agreements or other university policies that indicates a protection of  academic freedom, such as permitting students to pursue research in  relevant topics and allowing students to freely ask questions in the  classroom. For example, one university’s agreement states that all  members of and visitors to the institution in China will have unlimited  freedoms of expression and inquiry and will not be restricted in the  selection of research, lecture, or presentation topics. Another university’s  agreement states that the institution will be centered on open inquiry and  flow of information, while a third university’s student handbook states that  the university will guarantee the right to pursue academic topics of  interest. One additional university has language in a faculty handbook  that indicates both a protection of and potential restriction to academic  freedom. This institution’s faculty handbook includes language that  protects academic freedom but also encourages self-censorship to  prevent externally imposed discipline.
Another three universities’ written agreements include language indicating  that the institution in China will adhere to academic standards  commensurate with either the U.S. campus or the university’s accrediting  agency or other authoritative bodies. For example, one university’s  agreement states that the academic policies and procedures at the  institution in China shall comply with those of the U.S. university, while  another university’s agreement states that the institution in China will  conform to the requirements of the accreditation commission with  jurisdiction over the university. The accrediting agencies responsible for  the universities in our review all have language in their standards  regarding academic freedom. Finally, one university’s written agreement  does not mention academic freedom.
section_title: About Half of Universities Address Access to Information, but Few Agreements and Other Policies Include Internet Protections
paragraphs: About half of the universities we reviewed have agreements or policies  that address access to information by outlining responsibilities for  themselves and their Chinese partners for providing access to physical or  digital libraries. In addition, universities’ documents vary in whether the  U.S. or Chinese university partner will provide access to this information.  Chinese university partners that provide access to the library or Internet  and other technological resources may be subject to Chinese government  restrictions. For example, one university’s student handbook affirms that  the U.S. university will provide on-campus access to digital libraries and  computers for homework and academic use. Another university’s written  agreement states that the Chinese partner will provide requisite learning  resources, such as textbooks, classrooms, computer labs, and library  facilities.
A few universities’ written agreements and other policies include  language indicating that members of the university community will have  full or complete access to information. Such language may suggest  protections for Internet access. For example, one university’s student  handbook states that students will be active learners guaranteed the right  to pursue academic topics of interest, with full access to information and  relevant scholarship. However, these universities do not discuss in written  agreements or other policies if Internet access on campus is subject to  Chinese government censorship. Moreover, through our visits to  universities in China, we found that one of the universities that include  language suggesting uncensored Internet access would be provided did  not have such access on campus.
A few universities’ documents include language that indicates possible  Internet constraints. For example, one university’s student handbook  outlines student responsibilities such as appropriate use of the Internet  according to the regulations of the institution in China, further stating that  browsing illegal websites is forbidden. In addition, a few universities  include language that prohibits the use of technology and resources for  activities prohibited by law. Such provisions are a reminder that university  students may face difficulty when conducting academic research in China  due to government censorship on search engines, news outlets, and  social media websites.
section_title: About Half of Universities Address at Least One of the Freedoms of Speech, Assembly, and Religion or Worship
paragraphs: About half of U.S. universities address at least one of the freedoms of  speech, assembly, and religion or worship at their institutions in China.  Written agreements and policies for about half of the universities we  reviewed include language that suggests a protection of at least one of  the freedoms—speech, assembly, and religion or worship—though the  number of universities addressing each freedom varies. One other  university includes language that suggests a possible restriction on  speech. Table 2 shows examples of statements included in written  agreements or other policies to illustrate either protections or restrictions  of these freedoms.
Regarding freedom of speech, student and faculty handbooks at a few of  these universities contain language indicating that students have the  ability to discuss sensitive topics. Regarding freedom of assembly, a few  U.S. universities state in policy documents that faculty or students may  form unions or other groups, but one of these universities specifies that  the student union will coordinate with, or be administered by, the Chinese  partner university. Regarding freedom of religion or worship, none of the  university’s agreements or policies contains language indicating a  restriction on individuals’ ability to practice their religion. Moreover,  several of the universities include language in their policy documents  indicating that religious practices will be protected. For example, one  university’s student handbook states that the institution in China  recognizes the importance of spiritual life for members of the community  and will assist members in locating a place of worship off campus. In  contrast, one university’s faculty handbook notes that faculty should  proceed carefully when broaching the subject of religion in the classroom.
section_title: U.S. University Members Generally Indicated They Experienced Academic Freedom, but Internet Censorship and Other Factors Posed Constraints
paragraphs: Faculty, students, and administrators we interviewed generally indicated  that they experienced academic freedom at U.S. universities’ institutions  in China, but they also indicated that Internet censorship, self-censorship,  and other factors presented constraints. The institutions’ legal status may  be correlated with greater academic and other freedoms experienced on  campus. Universities have indicated they are monitoring a new Chinese  law regulating foreign non-governmental organizations and have outlined  varying approaches to address possible infringements to academic  freedom at the institutions.
subsections: section_title: Faculty, Students, and Administrators Generally Indicated They Experienced Academic Freedom at U.S. Universities in China
subsections: section_title: Faculty and Student Perspectives on Academic Freedom
paragraphs: The more than 130 faculty and students we interviewed from seven  universities’ institutions in China generally reported that academic  freedom has not been restricted (see app. I for more information on the  numbers and types of faculty and students we interviewed). Faculty we  interviewed told us they did not face academic restrictions and could  teach or study whatever they chose. For example, several faculty  members asserted that neither they nor their colleagues would tolerate  any academic restrictions, and one faculty member told us he and his  colleagues intentionally introduced class discussions on politically  sensitive topics to test whether this would trigger any complaints or  attempted censorship. Other faculty members told us that they had never  been told to teach or avoid certain subjects or that their experiences of  teaching in China and the United States were comparable. Several faculty  members who had also taught at Chinese universities not affiliated with a  U.S. university noted that students and teachers could not talk as freely at  the Chinese university, with one faculty member noting he had specifically  been told not to discuss certain subjects while at the Chinese university.
Students also generally indicated that they experienced academic  freedom and could study or discuss any topic. Similar to faculty we  interviewed, some students who had also studied or knew others who  studied at Chinese universities contrasted their experiences. For  example, students noted that they could have interactive dialogue with  faculty, discuss sensitive topics, and freely access information at the U.S.  institution in China but not at a Chinese university. In addition, potentially  sensitive topics seemed to be freely discussed at some of the institutions  we visited, based on our meetings with students and faculty. The topics  included Tiananmen Square, protests in Hong Kong, Taiwan, abortion,  prostitution in China, and legalization of drugs. We also observed classes  at one institution where students and teachers discussed ethnic minorities  in Chinese society, U.S.-China relations, the U.S. military presence in the  South China Sea, and China’s increasing use of ideological and  information controls.
section_title: Administrator Perspectives on Academic Freedom
paragraphs: Through interviews and responses to our questionnaire, university  administrators reported that academic freedom was integral to their  institutions in China. Administrators at several universities told us that  academic freedom was nonnegotiable, while others noted that the same  curriculum used in the United States also applied to their institution in  China. Most universities reported that academic freedom was not at all  restricted for faculty or students. Several, however, reported that they  either did not know the extent of academic freedom at their institution in  China or that it was slightly restricted. For example, administrators from  one university, which reported that students’ academic freedom was  slightly restricted and freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion or  worship were moderately restricted, noted that its students were Chinese  citizens and subject to all applicable rules and regulations intended for  Chinese students.
In addition, U.S. universities reported that they generally controlled  curriculum development and led or influenced faculty hiring. All 12  universities we reviewed reported that they led or played a leading role in  curriculum development, with most reporting that they effectively  controlled this process. Several universities noted that the curriculum  used for their institution in China was the same as the curriculum used on  their U.S. campus, while several others noted that they designed and  developed a new curriculum or modified their existing curriculum  specifically for the institution in China. At several universities we visited,  selected courses addressed the U.S. Constitution’s relevance to China,  comparative Chinese-American legal cultures, American foreign policy in  Asia, and the Cultural Revolution. With regard to faculty hiring, most  universities indicated that they either exerted more authority than their  Chinese partner over faculty hiring, including in some cases recruiting,  vetting, and recommending candidates for hire, or played a collaborative  role in the process. For example, administrators from one university told  us that faculty candidates were interviewed first by a committee at the  university’s U.S. campus and again at the institution in China, while  administrators from another university told us that they entirely controlled  faculty recruitment. Administrators from several universities noted,  however, that while they controlled or influenced processes related to  faculty hiring, an official from their Chinese partner university technically  had final faculty-hiring authority.
More broadly, administrators identified various goals related to  establishing their institution in China. For example, administrators from at  least half of the universities we reviewed reported that goals included  providing U.S. students with an international education experience,  providing Chinese students with an American education experience,  enhancing U.S.-Chinese research collaboration and knowledge  exchange, strengthening U.S.-Chinese relations, attracting Chinese  students to further studies at the U.S. university’s U.S. campus, and  providing faculty additional locations for teaching and research.
section_title: Internet Censorship, Self- Censorship, and Other Factors Create Obstacles to Learning at Some Universities
subsections: section_title: Fewer than Half of Reviewed Universities Have Uncensored Internet Access
paragraphs: Five of the 12 U.S. universities in China that we reviewed reported  uncensored Internet access, generally through use of a virtual private  network. As figure 5 shows, the remaining universities reported that they  do not have complete access to uncensored Internet content in China.
We visited universities that had uncensored Internet access and  universities that did not. Correspondingly, as is shown in figure 6, we  observed university members accessing search engines, newspapers,  and social media sites that have been blocked in China—such as the  New York Times, Google, and Facebook—at some universities but not  others.
Administrators at the three universities we visited that have uncensored  Internet access told us that uncensored access was available to all  university members throughout campus and was an integral aspect of  their institution in China. An administrator at one of these universities,  however, told us that the university is required by the Chinese  government to track and maintain records for several months of faculty,  student, and staff Internet usage, including the Internet sites visited by  faculty and staff. The administrator added that, to date, no Chinese  government official had asked for these records. Administrators at other  universities we visited told us that they were either not required to track  Internet usage of faculty or students or that they were unaware of any  such requirement.
Internet Search Results in China May be  Filtered by Language  Search results can also be filtered depending  on the language used. An English language  search of “Tiananmen Square” on one search  engine references what the State Department  has characterized as the Chinese  government’s violent suppression of protests  in and around Tiananmen Square in1989, as  shown above; however, an image search in  Chinese language on the same search engine  instead provides mostly tourist images about  Tiananmen Square.
At several universities that lacked access to uncensored Internet  content, students and faculty told us that, as a result, they sometimes  face challenges teaching, conducting research, and completing  coursework. For example, one faculty member told us that she  sometimes asks others outside of mainland China to conduct Internet  research for her because they can access information she cannot. A  student at one university told us she needed to access a certain scholarly  database typically blocked in China, while several students at another  university told us their ability to conduct academic research was  constrained by the Internet limitations. Students at one university told us  that the educational software used in some classes relied on tools  developed by a search engine provider blocked in China and that this  software would therefore sometimes not function. Individuals at several  other universities noted that faculty had to adapt to the Internet  restrictions, for example, by accessing websites comparable to those  censored in China, such as sites comparable to YouTube for sharing  videos or to Gmail for sending email. Administrators, faculty, and  students at several of these universities told us that individuals often  used virtual private networks to mitigate Internet restrictions, but some  students and faculty told us that these networks had limitations. For  example, students and faculty at one university in China told us that the  U.S. university provided access to its virtual private network but that it  was not always reliable. Some students and faculty noted that they had  purchased access to their own virtual private networks. At the time of our  visit, however, some students told us that some of these commercial  networks were operating poorly, causing them to revert to using the  university’s network.
Several universities we reviewed not only faced Internet censorship but  also experienced restricted service. For example, at one university  Internet service is unavailable in certain buildings, and some students  cannot use the Internet in dormitories after 11 p.m, according to  university administrators. In addition, several individuals told us that  Internet access is sometimes blocked or significantly slowed at night,  speculating that this was due to the university network’s bandwidth being  taxed by the number of students playing video games during those hours.
University library services may offset Internet restrictions to some degree.  All five universities we visited provided university members access to the  university’s main online library, which included access to research  journals and other publications that may otherwise have been blocked in  China. Universities’ on-campus libraries varied in size and offerings. Two  universities we visited featured libraries that were recently built or  renovated and that enabled students to browse or select books directly  from the shelves. As figure 8 shows, one of these libraries contained  books on topics such as Taiwan, Tibet, and Tiananmen Square, which  may be banned or difficult to obtain in China. The other library had more  than 120,000 books, including both English and Chinese.
Administrators at both of these universities told us that no book had ever  been removed from the library by Chinese government officials, though  one of them noted that, in the past, Chinese Customs officials confiscated  some books intended for the library. To compensate, faculty traveling  from the United States to China had occasionally brought books for the  library in their personal luggage. In contrast, a former student at another  university we visited told us the only library available was that of the  Chinese university and said a study room intended for U.S. students  contained a limited number of English language titles.
section_title: Self-Censorship and Other Factors Create Obstacles to Learning
paragraphs: We found that several factors can create obstacles to learning at  universities we reviewed, including self-censorship, constraints specific to  Chinese students, and restrictions beyond campus borders.
Self-censorship: While we were told of examples of self-censorship— choosing to not express an idea or thought that may offend others or  cause other problems—at universities we reviewed, it is difficult to  assess the extent to which this occurs. Several faculty members we  interviewed noted that it is ultimately not possible to know whether,  when, or the extent to which self-censorship takes place. For  example, individuals may self-censor unconsciously or may knowingly  self-censor but not acknowledge doing so. Moreover, self-censorship  can occur in any number of settings and with different motivations.  Nonetheless, administrators, faculty, and students representing more  than half of the universities we reviewed gave examples of self- censorship, including some cases where individuals were advised by  their teachers or others in positions of authority to avoid certain topics.  For example, an administrator at one university noted that he believed  it was advisable, as a guest of China, to refrain from insulting China,  while an administrator at another university noted that the university  advises teachers to avoid discussing sensitive subjects in class.  Several professors at one university told us that they avoid certain  political topics or topics that may make others uncomfortable. At  another university, faculty told us they try to be respectful of the host  country in treating certain academic subjects, and one professor told  us he believes he should not discuss Tiananmen Square. One  professor told us he advised students to avoid presentations on  sensitive topics, while a few students from a few universities told us  they had been advised to avoid certain sensitive topics, such as  Tiananmen Square or China’s relationship with Taiwan. Other  students at several universities told us they avoided certain topics for  various reasons—for example, to avoid starting arguments with their  Chinese classmates or out of concern that raising certain topics may  cause other problems. Several other students reported to us that they  specifically avoided discussing religion or political topics because they  thought it might be inappropriate or cause trouble. In addition, several  faculty members noted that self-censorship may affect research  efforts given that publishing articles on certain topics may jeopardize  the researcher’s ability to obtain a visa to visit or work in China.
Constraints specific to Chinese students: Some conditions specifically  affecting Chinese students may constrain their academic experience.  Faculty and students from various universities observed that in  general Chinese students participated in classroom discussions less  often than students from other countries. Some suggested that  Chinese students may be uncomfortable with Western teaching  methods or inhibited by language limitations; however, some noted  that Chinese students may know or suspect that their Chinese  classmates are government or Communist Party monitors and will  report on whatever the students say. Moreover, an administrator at  one university told us that he assumes there are Chinese students  and faculty in the institution who report to the government or the  Communist Party about the activities of other Chinese students.  Faculty members at several universities also told us that they  understood there were Chinese students in class who intended to  report on the speech of faculty or Chinese students. Several faculty  members told us they had adopted various teaching approaches to  circumvent these constraints and encourage greater participation  among Chinese students. One professor told of constructing  classroom debates in which students were required to argue both  sides of a sensitive political issue regardless of their nationality or  belief; he believed that this enabled Chinese students to speak more  freely about these topics. We found other examples of certain  conditions Chinese students face that could constrain their academic  experience. For example, one university provides only non-Chinese  students access to its main university web portal, which provides  uncensored Internet access. In addition, according to university  administrators, only Chinese students must complete military training  and take certain courses, such as on Chinese political thought. A  student at one university told us Chinese students had a curfew and  Internet restrictions while international students did not.
Restrictions off campus: Administrators, faculty, and students at  several universities emphasized that they have certain freedoms on  campus, such as the ability to teach or discuss whatever they want,  but not off campus. They offered examples of how some typical  activities in an American college setting are not possible in China. For  example, a faculty member at one university told us she once brought  her class to a coffee shop adjacent to campus, but the public location  stifled discussion. Students at another university told us that they  ended a classroom discussion that had been continued on a social  media site because some classmates believed the discussion was  inappropriate. One student noted that one Chinese student  considered reporting the discussion to Chinese censors.
section_title: Universities’ Legal Status May Be Correlated with Academic Freedom
paragraphs: The three universities we reviewed that are approved by the Chinese  Ministry of Education as having independent legal status share  characteristics that may be correlated with greater academic and other  freedoms on campus. We found that these universities had campuses  built specifically for the joint institution that were located relatively far  away from their Chinese university partner’s campus, generally controlled  their own day-to-day operations, had uncensored Internet access, offered  extensive campus and student life programs, and sought to engage with  Chinese entities beyond campus. In contrast, as table 3 shows, the other  nine universities we reviewed did not consistently share these  characteristics. Moreover, we found various examples from these other  universities indicating that Chinese entities exert a greater degree of  influence over their institutions than over institutions with independent  legal status.
section_title: Universities Indicated They Will Monitor Impact of Chinese Law and May Take Different Actions Should Academic Freedom Be Impaired
paragraphs: University administrators told us they are aware of, and monitoring, a new  Chinese law regulating foreign non-governmental organizations. After the  law’s passage, the U.S. Secretary of State issued a statement noting that,  while the final version of the law included improvements from prior drafts,  it could nonetheless negatively impact foreign non-profit non- governmental organizations, and their Chinese partners. We asked  universities we reviewed to comment on the law and its potential impact  on their institutions in China. The six universities that responded indicated  either that they believed the law would not have an impact or that it was  unknown or too early to tell, while several noted that they would continue  to monitor the law’s implementation. According to a State official, it is too  soon to tell what, if any, impact the law may have on universities.
Universities may take different actions if Chinese law or other factors  create infringements to academic or other freedoms. University  administrators and faculty members have outlined ways individuals could  raise concerns to respond to potential infringements on academic and  other freedoms, such as by contacting university administrators based in  the United States or China, speaking directly with institution directors, or  raising concerns through the student government or academic senate.  Administrators at several universities asserted that they would  discontinue their institution and leave China if they encountered problems  related to academic freedom that they were unable to resolve. Academics  have made other recommendations to protect academic freedom,  including that universities make public their agreements with Chinese  partners, ensure these agreements state that cooperative education  institutions will be terminated if academic freedom is compromised, and  establish an office to investigate and report on academic freedom  infringements.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: In recent years, a growing number of U.S. universities have established  degree-granting institutions with Chinese partners in an environment, as  characterized by the Department of State, of worsening human rights and  academic freedom conditions in China. We found that universities  generally emphasize academic freedom at their institutions in China and,  in most cases, include language seeking to protect these or other  freedoms in written agreements and other documents. Nonetheless, the  environment in which these universities operate presents both tangible  and intangible challenges. In particular, Internet censorship presents  challenges to teaching, conducting research, and completing coursework.  However, it is much more difficult for universities to know the degree to  which faculty or students self-censor or how this may affect academic  freedom. Moreover, given that motivations to self-censor can be deeply  rooted in individual concerns and shaped by long-established conditions  in China, universities have limited ability to prevent self-censorship in the  classroom or on campus.
Members of universities we reviewed indicated they have freedoms on  campus that do not exist beyond it, suggesting that they operate within a  protected sphere in China. But the universities clearly vary in this regard,  with a few seeming to be less subject to influence from Chinese entities  than others. As Department of State officials have noted, it is too soon to  tell whether the recent passage of a Chinese law regulating foreign  nongovernmental organizations could signal tightening restrictions on  universities.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We are not making recommendations in this report. We provided a draft  of this report to the Departments of Education and of State for comment.  The agencies responded that they had no comments.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report’s date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees and to the Secretaries of Education and State.  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website  at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at gootnickd@gao.gov or 202-512-3149. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: In this report, we reviewed (1) funding and other support provided by the  U.S. government and other sources to U.S. universities to operate in  China; (2) the treatment of academic and other key freedoms in  arrangements between U.S. universities and their Chinese partners; and  (3) the experience of academic and other key freedoms by faculty,  students, and staff at selected U.S. universities in China.
To address these objectives, we reviewed the 12 U.S. universities that we  identified as having partnered with Chinese universities to establish  degree-granting institutions in China: Carnegie Mellon University, Duke  University, Fort Hays State University, Johns Hopkins University, Kean  University, Missouri State University, New York Institute of Technology,  New York University, Northwood University, Rutgers University, the  University of Michigan, and the University of Pittsburgh. To identify  universities, we reviewed several information sources, including the  Department of Education’s list of U.S. universities with locations in China  and the Chinese Ministry of Education’s data on U.S. universities  approved to operate cooperative education institutions and cooperative  education programs in China. (See app. II for these Ministry of Education  lists.) We determined that we did not intend to review the more than 130  U.S. universities that have established individual education programs in  China but rather the universities that, at the time of our review, were  approved to operate cooperative institutions. The results we report are  therefore not necessarily generalizable to all U.S. universities that have  partnered with Chinese universities to establish cooperative education  programs. During our review, two other universities were also approved to  operate cooperative education institutions in China. Because of the status  of and extent of completed work for our review of the 12 universities, we  did not include these universities in our review. In addition, we reviewed  documents of independent organizations that list, review, and outline  standards for higher education partnerships abroad and interviewed  officials from several of these organizations. One of these organizations  maintains a list of “international branch campuses.” We reviewed this list,  discussed it with its authors, and found that it was generally consistent  with the Chinese Ministry of Education’s list of approved cooperative  education institutions. In addition, we interviewed university  administrators to better understand the characteristics of their institutions  in China. As a result of these interviews, we decided to include in our  review one additional university that was not included on the Chinese  Ministry of Education’s list of approved cooperative education institutions.  We also interviewed officials from several organizations associated with  international higher education to better understand types of overseas  higher education programs, including those in China; trends in U.S.- Chinese educational cooperation; standards for international higher  education; and academic freedom protections at such programs, among  other topics. In our reporting information about the 12 universities, we did  not attribute information or statements to them by name. We used the  following terms to report the results of our review of these universities:  “most” represent 8 to 11; “about half” represent 5 to 7; and “several” or “a  few” represent 2 to 4.
We sent a questionnaire to administrators of all 12 universities in our  sample asking about a variety of topics. As part of the questionnaire  development, we submitted the questionnaire for review by a GAO survey  specialist. To minimize errors that might occur from respondents  interpreting our questions differently than we intended, we pretested our  questionnaire with administrators from three universities. During the  pretests, conducted by telephone, we asked the administrators to read  the instructions and each question aloud and to tell us how they  interpreted the question. We then discussed the instructions and  questions with them to determine whether (1) the instructions and  questions were clear and unambiguous, (2) the terms we used were  accurate, (3) the questionnaire was unbiased, (4) the questionnaire did  not place an undue burden on the officials completing it, and (5) the  identification of potential solutions to any problems detected was  possible. We noted any potential problems. We modified the  questionnaire based on feedback from the pretests and internal GAO  review as appropriate. We sent the Microsoft Word form questionnaire  and a cover email to the universities on February 26, 2016, and asked  them to complete the questionnaire and email it back to us within 2  weeks. We closed the questionnaire on June 3, 2016. Eleven universities  provided detailed responses on the questionnaire form; one university  provided useful narrative responses but did not answer the questionnaire  itself. Therefore, the overall response rate for the questionnaire was 92  percent. Some universities declined to answer some questions, especially  about financial information, so the item-level response rate varies by  question. Because we are not trying to generalize the results of the  questionnaire to other universities outside that sample, there was no  questionnaire sampling error. However, the practical difficulties of  conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as  nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular question  is interpreted, the sources of information available to respondents, how  the responses were processed and analyzed, or the types of people who  do not respond can influence the accuracy of the questionnaire results.  We took steps in the development of the questionnaire, the data  collection, and the data analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors  and help ensure the accuracy of the answers that were obtained. For  example, a social science survey specialist designed the questionnaire in  collaboration with GAO staff with subject matter expertise. Then, as noted  earlier, the draft questionnaire was pretested to ensure that questions  were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to comprehend. The questionnaire  was also reviewed by an additional GAO survey specialist, as mentioned  above. Data were manually entered from the Word questionnaires into an  Excel spreadsheet that was then imported into a statistical program for  analyses. All data entry was checked and any errors corrected. We  examined the questionnaire results and performed computer analyses to  identify missing data, inconsistencies, and other indications of error and  addressed such issues as necessary, including through follow-up  communications with the universities. Quantitative data analyses were  conducted by a GAO survey specialist using statistical software, and a  review of open-ended responses was conducted by the GAO staff with  subject matter expertise. An independent GAO data analyst checked the  statistical computer programs for accuracy.
To identify funding and other support the U.S. government and other  sources have provided to U.S. universities to operate in China, we  analyzed responses to the questionnaire we sent to administrators,  interviewed administrators from all 12 universities, and reviewed  university documents. The questionnaire included questions about the  sources of funding and nonmaterial assistance used to establish and  operate the institutions in China, about financial aid to students, and  about the financial relationship between the U.S. university and the  institution. We also interviewed university administrators about the  funding and other support their institutions in China received. Because of  differences in the ways universities tracked and reported on their funding  sources, we were not able to report funding amounts for each university  or to calculate the percentage of each university’s institution budget  funded by Chinese government entities, private donors, and other  sources. However, by combining information we obtained from the  questionnaire, interviews, and university documents, we were able to  identify the types of support provided. We also obtained information and  interviewed officials from the Department of Education (Education) and  reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, including those related to  financial aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as  amended.
To determine the treatment of academic and other key freedoms — specifically freedoms of speech, information, assembly, and religion or  worship—in arrangements between U.S. universities and their Chinese  partners, we reviewed written agreements and university policies  submitted by the U.S. universities. University policies include faculty and  student handbooks as well as other planning documents for the  institutions in China. Of the 12 U.S. universities that participated in our  review, 9 provided either all or a part of the written agreement with their  Chinese partner universities, and 8 provided university policies. In total,  11 of the 12 universities we reviewed submitted either their written  agreement or other university policies pertaining to their programs in  China. We conducted a content analysis of the written agreements and  other policies to identify instances in which the U.S. universities address  academic freedom and other key freedoms. To define academic freedom,  we derived our definition from the American Association of University  Professors’ 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and  Tenure, to which hundreds of U.S. universities adhere. We also identified  freedoms of information, speech, assembly, and religion or worship as  other key freedoms relating to universities operating in China given the  significance of these freedoms to universities in the United States and  reported restrictions related to these freedoms in China. We derived our  definition for freedom of information from the United Nations’ 2011 Report  of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to  Freedom of Opinion and Expression, which designates Internet freedom  as a basic human right. In addition, we derived definitions for the  freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion or worship from the United  Nations’ 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which outlines  these freedoms as basic human rights. In addition, in our questionnaire  we asked university administrators to identify the extent to which their  universities’ written agreements or other policies address academic  freedom and other key freedoms. We also interviewed administrators  from all 12 U.S. universities that participated in our review to learn how  these U.S. universities developed written agreements with their Chinese  partner universities. For the content analysis, we compared the definitions  of each freedom with all the agreements, handbooks, and other official  publications provided by the universities to assess whether and how the  freedom was referenced in those documents. One GAO analyst  conducted this analysis, coding the information based on how universities  referenced the freedom and entering it into a spreadsheet, and another  GAO analyst checked the information for agreement. Any initial  disagreements in the coding were discussed and reconciled by the  analysts.
To learn about the experiences of academic freedom and other key  freedoms by faculty, students, and administrators at selected U.S.  universities in China, we interviewed administrators from all 12  universities. We also visited five universities in China, where we met with  administrators, faculty, and students. In addition, we interviewed faculty  and students who had previously studied or taught at six of the  universities and were currently living elsewhere. All interviews were  conducted in English. Overall, we interviewed more than 190  administrators, faculty, and students, including the following:
More than 70 administrators from 12 universities, including university  presidents and other executive officials as well as staff from various  offices such as those supporting student life and other student  services, libraries, and information technology.
More than 35 faculty members from seven universities, including more  than 30 U.S. citizens, several Chinese citizens, and one citizen from  another country. The faculty members we interviewed included both  those sent from the U.S. campus to teach at the institution in China on  a temporary basis and those hired specifically to teach at the  university institution in China.
More than 95 students from six universities, including interviewing  roughly an equal mix of U.S. and Chinese citizens on campuses in  China, and several students from other countries. Our interviews with  students included a mix of one-on-one interviews and discussion  groups. In addition, nearly 40 of these students that we interviewed  from two universities also completed a written questionnaire. We  asked them to complete the questionnaire because we believed some  students might be more willing to answer candidly on an anonymous  questionnaire than during an oral interview. To maintain their  anonymity and to encourage candid responses students were  instructed not to write their names on the questionnaire. The  questionnaire was in English, and students were asked to respond in  English, as they were enrolled in courses taught in English. The  questionnaire addressed the same general topics that were used to  guide our student interviews and discussion groups. We analyzed  responses to the written student questionnaires alongside our  analysis of student interviews and discussion groups.
In selecting universities to visit, we included both public and private  universities; universities with institutions in different locations within  China; universities that established institutions in China at different points  in time; and universities with institutions having varying student  demographics, including several with predominantly Chinese student  bodies and several with a mixture of students from the United States,  China, and other countries. We also planned to visit two additional  institutions, but our visits were declined by, in one case, the Chinese  university partner and, in the other case, by the provincial ministry of  education with jurisdiction over the institution. In addition to conducting  interviews during our visits to these universities, we also reviewed  campus facilities including classrooms, libraries, cafeterias, and  dormitories.
In our discussions with faculty members and students, we addressed  topics such as the reasons they chose to work or study at the programs in  China, the extent to which they may be constrained from teaching or  studying certain topics, their experience of Internet access in China,  campus life and student activities, any differences they have perceived or  experienced between U.S. and Chinese faculty and students, and other  topics relating to their experience at the program particularly as it relates  to academic and other freedoms. To mitigate possible limitations of  testimonial evidence from individuals in China regarding their experience  of academic and other freedoms, we  interviewed both U.S. and Chinese students and faculty;  interviewed faculty and students currently in China as well as faculty  and students currently in the United States who had formerly taught or  studied at the university in China;  requested that faculty and students participate in our interviews on a  voluntary basis; and offered students the option of completing an anonymous written  questionnaire.
We also analyzed university administrator responses to our questionnaire  applicable to their university in China, including questions relating to  curriculum and faculty hiring; faculty and student experiences of  academic freedom, freedom of information, freedom of speech, freedom  of assembly, or freedom of religion or worship; and how, if at all,  standards and protections for these freedoms differ between U.S. and  Chinese students or in comparison with those to the university’s U.S.  campus, among others. The information on foreign law in this report is not  the product of GAO’s original analysis but is derived from interviews and  secondary sources.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2015 to August  2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: U.S. University Cooperative Education Institutions and Programs in China
paragraphs: The Chinese Ministry of Education has approved 13 U.S. universities to  operate 16 cooperative education institutions, according to the ministry.  Table 4 provides a full list of these 13 U.S. universities and their  institutions. As the table indicates, two universities operate more than one  cooperative education institution. We did not review the cooperative  education institutions approved for the University of Illinois and the  University of Miami, as these two institutions were approved subsequent  to the start of our review. Although we reviewed Johns Hopkins  University’s institution in China, it is not included in table 4 because it was  established before the Chinese Ministry of Education established its  approval process for Sino-Foreign cooperative institutions and programs.
According to the Chinese Ministry of Education, 133 U.S. universities  have been approved by the ministry to operate 225 cooperative education  programs in partnership with Chinese universities. Such cooperative  education programs can take various forms, such as joint or dual degree  programs. Table 5 provides a full list of these programs. This list is based  on information taken directly from the Chinese Ministry of Education’s  website. We did not review these programs or verify that all of them are  currently operating.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: David Gootnick, (202) 512-3149, or gootnickd@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Melissa Emrey-Arras (Director),  Jason Bair (Assistant Director), Meeta Engle (Assistant Director), Joe  Carney, Marissa Jones, Sean Manzano, James Bennett, Jessica  Botsford, Mark Dowling, Mary Moutsos, Reid Lowe and Michael Silver  made key contributions to this report.