Do the Risks of U.S.-China Educational Exchange Outweigh the Benefits?

Madelyn Ross, President of US-China Education Trust

I believe the benefits of education exchange and academic collaboration outweigh the risks—and I say this based on more than 20 years of experience working on U.S.-China education exchanges and academic collaborations.  Let me respond directly to some of the issues identified as risks in the debate:

Dr. Miles Yu, who argued on behalf of the risks outweighing the benefits, claims that the U.S. has trained China’s best and brightest for the CCP’s benefit, adding that nearly 90 percent of Chinese students end up returning to China.  Actually, over the years, the opposite has been true. When they are given the choice, most Chinese students have preferred to stay here. As for those with the most advanced knowledge and research skills, almost 90 percent of Chinese doctoral degrees earners have chosen to stay in the U.S.  It is true that, since 2014, the U.S. has hosted more undergraduates than graduate students from China and these young undergrads do return to China at a much higher rate than graduate students. But undergraduates are not the students with advanced training who concern most people.

Miles Yu also says that academic engagement and collaboration with China undermines U.S. national security due to the CCP’s influence over the students. Actually, most of the hundreds of Chinese students I have known over the years are favorably impressed by and admire many aspects of America. Their experience gives them a new and less favorable perspective on the system they came from in China. More than 3 million Chinese students have studied in the U.S. since the early 1980s and most of them have stayed. This seems to me a win for the U.S.  It was also argued that academic engagement corrupts U.S. scholarly ethics and research. But if advanced scholars from China stay in the United States, make contributions to the advancement of knowledge and often earn a place in the U.S. as scholars and professors, this is a win for U.S. scholarship and research. Dr. Yasheng Huang, who argued on behalf of the benefits of academic exchange, is an example of this and made this point in his presentation.

Finally, it was argued that the Chinese government wants unanimity of opinions and this presents a risk. Isn’t that precisely a reason why it is beneficial and important for Chinese scholars to continue to come here, and to experience the benefits of America’s education system and freer environment?

John Pomfret, American journalist and author of Chinese Lessons: Five Classmates and the Story of the New China

The risks of educational exchange and academic collaboration with China do not outweigh the benefits. There should be continued educational exchange and academic collaboration should proceed along the principles of reciprocity.

That said, U.S. universities must do a better job of 1) protecting U.S. intellectual property, and 2) welcoming and acculturating students from the world over — not just from China.

Without better structures to protect U.S. intellectual property, academic exchange does become problematic. And without a robust program at universities across the nation to instill in all students respect for such property and an understanding of the importance of free and open exchanges, such structures won’t be effective. You need both.

Hong Li, Professor of Pedagogy in the Department of Russian and East Asian Languages and Cultures at Emory University and the Director of the Emory College Language Center

I don’t believe the risks outweigh the benefits. Educational exchange and academic collaboration promote the sharing of disciplinary knowledge and inspire innovation. They also lay the necessary foundation for addressing and solving global issues that impact humanity, such as the COVID-19 Pandemic. The benefits outweigh the risks. 

I think it depends on the nature of the collaboration/exchange and the type of risks. If Emory students, for example, plan to study abroad in China, Emory needs a rigorous and extensive pre-departure orientation program to prepare them for living and studying in China, and the sessions should include information on U.S.-China relations, China’s political system and climate, cultural protocols, and so on. 

Qiong Le, Curriculum Director for Chinese Cultural School of Atlanta and Chinese Language Professor at Emory University

I don’t think the risks of educational exchange and academic collaboration with China outweigh the benefits.

Education exchange and academic collaboration between the United States and China have brought evident benefits to both sides in terms of mutual cultural understanding, progress in relevant research, and the promotion of international partnerships. These collaborations can also enhance global cooperation on crucial issues, leading other countries to work together earnestly.

However, as is well known, these collaborations come with risks, such as concerns about intellectual property theft and worries stemming from different academic standards and practices. Universities can take precautionary measures to address these risks safely and effectively.

For example, universities can conduct background checks on potential collaborators, carry out risk assessments for corresponding collaboration projects, understand the risks associated with collaboration, and specify collaboration guidelines and agreements based on these assessments. These guidelines should include provisions for data sharing, intellectual property protection, and technology transfer, ensuring that all agreements and regulations comply with U.S. laws and regulations. This approach can safeguard collaboration for both parties.

The ultimate goal of education exchange and academic collaboration should be to maximize the benefits of international cooperation while maintaining a balance between national security and intellectual property protection. As long as precautions and monitoring are in place, there is no need to restrict the scope, depth, or breadth of collaboration or even ban collaboration because of the existence of risks.

Thomas B. Gold, Executive Director of the Inter-University Program for Chinese Language Studies (IUP) and Professor of Sociology at the University of California 

When I started learning Chinese in the 1960s (on a dare), the only place to study and live in a Chinese-speaking environment was Taiwan, aka the Republic of China. At that time, Taiwan, America’s Cold War ally, was under a hard dictatorship and martial law. The thought of even going to the communist-ruled People’s Republic of China on the mainland was virtually inconceivable. Very few colleges or universities even taught Chinese and facility with the language was definitely not a ticket to a high-paying job in the private sector.

I was in the first group of American government-sponsored students to study in China beginning in February 1979, at the very dawn of its reform and opening to the outside world. We had been told not to expect to have close friendships with any Chinese people, to be able to visit them in their homes, or to have much of a life outside of school. There was basically no rule of law. We were pioneers in what was likely a very high-risk environment. As it turned out, this could not have been further from the truth. Our schoolmates and others we met from all walks of life could not have been more eager to open up about their lives and reveal the reality of life in China beneath and behind the veil of official rhetoric. We gained the ability to see a world that had been firmly off-limits to us through the unofficial eyes and language of its people.

Fast forward to today when over 40 years of movement in the direction of increased and ever deeper multifaceted relations have come to a screeching halt, and we are now asked to ponder whether or not we should revive educational exchanges and collaboration, most of which were put on hold during the COVID19 pandemic. My answer is that the benefits of such exchanges far and away outweigh the risks.

From 2000 until 2016 I served as Executive Director of the Inter-University Program for Chinese Language Studies whose teaching program was at Tsinghua University in Beijing, and executive office at the University of California, Berkeley. This is an elite program whose board of directors comprised representatives from many of the top schools in North America. Sure there were Communist Party members among the teachers and staff who were reporting on what was taught, but they did not interfere. Our students have gone on to careers in virtually every field of government, diplomacy, business, the arts and academics for starters. Their language skills and experience living in China, often in home stays, make them invaluable contributors to informed dealings with China. It drives me crazy to see pictures of U.S.-China meetings where all of the interpreting is conducted solely by Chinese interpreters. How to evaluate the subtleties and nuances missed in both directions without well-trained interpreters from both sides?

Sino-American relations are still very tense, (although there have been signs of unfreezing of late), but this is absolutely NOT the time to cut back on programs of two-way exchange and collaboration. Although the STEM fields remain quite sensitive, for good reason, people in social sciences and humanities should have every opportunity to study and live in China. Programs such as Fulbright should be revived immediately. Rather than cut back on language and culture programs (shame, shame on West Virginia University), schools should increase investment in them, particularly in Chinese. Since the Chinese-government sponsored Confucius Institutes have for all intents and purposes been chased off stage, our governments at all levels should step in to increase funding for language study. This is a Sputnik moment that should not be wasted.

Based on a recent stay in China, I would argue that Chinese universities and think tanks are more than eager to restart exchange programs and collaboration, and might be amenable to requests/demands from possible foreign partners to get things moving again.  I suggest convening a meeting of interested universities and programs to share experiences and suggestions for risk reduction. There is no single model, but many face the same issues: where is the program situated physically and within the university’s structure; where will/can students live; who determines curriculum; who pays; how are banking, internet, visas, health care, insurance, legal issues, taxation, etc.  handled; will there be a foreign supervisor and how would they fit into the university structure; can students practice their religion; and so on.

Of course there’s no fool proof way of eliminating risks, and there is a lot of nasty business about China these days, but we need to have a cadre of people throughout society with language skills and knowledge about this country and its people.