China’s move to take more direct control of university governance is likely to presage a further crackdown on academic freedom, experts have warned.
University presidents have long complained of a lack of autonomy stemming from the influence of government-appointed party secretaries on campuses, but these parallel governance structures are now being merged at institutions across the country.
Tsinghua University issued a notice last month announcing the merger of its party committee and the office of the president to form a new party committee office that will run the country’s top-ranked institution, Radio Free Asia reported, and a review of campus websites by the US-funded station indicated that similar changes were under way in at least eight other major institutions.
This signifies a profound shift in power dynamics, placing greater emphasis on the authority of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in higher education, according to Ye Liu, a reader in international development at King’s College London.
“While not entirely unexpected, this development underscores the enduring influence of the CCP administration over academic affairs,” she said.
Dr Liu said that while party committees had long exercised control over university operations by promoting ideological reforms, academics had been able to retain a degree of freedom in their teaching and research provided that they declared their loyalty to the CCP.
The merger of the parallel systems could presage a “heightened crackdown on academic freedom”, she said.
“There has been a noticeable uptick in public criticisms directed at academics who are perceived to have ‘stepped out of the party line’, particularly those expressing critical views of the government within the classroom,” Dr Liu said.
“Additionally, research funding is increasingly directed towards initiatives characterised as ‘ideology-oriented’, including both course development and research activities.”
Kerry Brown, professor of Chinese studies at King’s, viewed the mergers as underlining that the CCP regards universities as key areas for indoctrination and for managing potential ideological threats, although, he explained, it had always been known that real power on campuses lay in the hands of party officials.
“The changes that have been implemented, therefore, while making this role far clearer, don’t probably mean any radical change from the way things have been before,” said Professor Brown.
“They just make it more explicit. They underline just how deep the party now reaches into society, and how commanding its role is.”
Chris Hughes, emeritus professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, agreed that the move could be seen as more of a tightening of the previous system, but was still a matter of concern.
It probably reflected the government’s concern about the growing frustration among the Chinese population, and especially academics, over a range of issues that had come to a head with the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, he said.
“Combined with the lack of any commitment to academic freedom, I do wonder whether we should really call these institutions universities at all,” Professor Hughes argued.
