Welcome to China
The people running Australia’s universities are more interested in Chinese students and money than they are in freedom of speech. By Will Jefferies.
The forces of authoritarianism usually like to operate clandestinely, hoping that the people they seek to suppress don’t notice until it’s too late. To them, freedom is the absence of vigilance.
It can happen anywhere, even in an Australian university, as I discovered when I walked past Sydney University’s official “graffiti wall” on July 28.
The previous day, some students had posted a collage of notices supporting the pro-Western freedom protesters in Hong Kong and warning about the potentially lethal threat the Chinese Government posed to them. It was labelled a “Lennon Wall”, after a similar wall in Prague, The Czech Republic, that has been a perennial magnet for protest messages since 1980.
Overnight, the Lennon Wall had been removed and the posters discarded in a nearby gutter, presumably by friends of the Chinese Government.
So the pro-Hong Kong protesters tried again, sticking their posters on the main walkway at Sydney University. Again the posters were removed, only this time the supporters of Chinese censorship did it in broad daylight.
This point needs to be emphasised: Supporters of a totalitarian regime have brazenly suppressed free speech on an Australian university campus, supposedly a citadel of free thought and robust debate. Did they assume the university would not care? If so, they may have assumed correctly.
The only response from the university as of this afternoon was a bland statement from a media “spokesman” saying: “We strongly support the right of students to protest and express opinions and political views. We do not condone the removal of the ‘Lennon Wall’.
“Any student subject to a complaint and subsequent investigation would be dealt with according to our Student Complaints Procedures 2015 and University of Sydney (Student Discipline) Rule 2016policies. The safety of all our students is a top priority and we will continue to monitor the situation.”
When I contacted the media office, I was told that the only reason nobody had put their name to the statement was because no “senior stakeholders” were available.
So a fundamental principle of western civilisation was under attack at a university, and the people who run the campus were otherwise occupied. Interesting.
You might also notice that an investigation will not be undertaken unless a “student is subject to a complaint”. So denying free speech on campus is in itself not an offence. Again, interesting.
Similar events were happening elsewhere. At the University of Queensland, a similar “Lennon Wall” was torn down. The response there was more robust. University officials are reviewing footage of the pro-Chinese censors and will take action against anybody identified, according to The Guardian.
Any perception that universities are tolerant of Chinese intervention would be unfortunate, given how reliant our top universities have become on not only Chinese students but Chinese Government money.
Each of our top universities (including Sydney, UQ, Melbourne, ANU, La Trobe, UWA, RMIT, Griffith and Adelaide) hosts a Confucius Institute, a unit within the campus designed to promote Chinese language and culture. But that is not all they do.
Former Chinese propaganda chief Li Changchun says the Confucius Institutes are “an important part of China’s overseas propaganda set-up,” according to Hong Kong Free Press.
In return for the money associated with these institutes, our universities have compromised their integrity. “With Confucius Institutes, Australian universities clearly got the balance wrong,” said Swinburne University of Technology Centre for Social Impact professor emeritus John Fitzgerald in The Australian last year.
“In this case, a donor in China assigns a teacher to each program and sets clear limits on what can be said and done in the classroom. In effect, a number of Australian universities that are keen to expand their Chinese language and studies offerings have undermined their academic integrity, autonomy and freedom by ceding control over staffing and content to a donor.”
In the case of UQ, the contract goes beyond merely hosting an institute. According to a copy of the contract the university signed with the Chinese Government’s agency obtained by Channel Nine, UQ must: “Plan promotional activities to establish and increase the impact of the brand of the Confucius Institute including media events such as films and television screenings.”
When Hong Kong supporters protested peacefully at UQ last month, they were confronted by pro-China opponents, who tore up their placards and physically intimidated them. Brisbane Chinese Consul-General Xu Jie applauded the “spontaneous patriotic behaviour” of the China supporters. Xu Jie is also a professor of language and culture at UQ.
The reliance on Chinese student fees adds more pressure on vice-chancellors to be complaint. Chinese students account for approximately $10 billion of the $32 billion Australian universities earn from foreign students.
Examples of university compromises are becoming frequent. In 2017, Sydney University IT lecturer Dr Khimji Vaghjiani accidentally used an outdated map in class that showed India controlled disputed land on the border with China. He was forced to issue a formal apology.
In 2016, an ANU academic apologised after writing a warning in both English and Chinese to students about cheating. In 2013, the University of Sydney cancelled the Dalai Llama’s visit to avoid antagonising the Chinese community and jeopardizing the continuation of the Confucius Centre. Ironically, the proposed name for his speech was “Education Matters”.
It is ironic that the most emphatic defenders of free speech on Australian campuses are now those Chinese citizens who are siding with their Hong Kong counterparts. Sadly, they are afraid to identify themselves for fear of the repercussions both here and in China.
Yesterday, we received a text from one of them. “We feel that some individuals don’t respect our right to freedom of speech, as the saying goes ‘when in Rome, do as the Romans do’,” it said.
“Freedom of speech is one of the reasons that make Australia a great country, where ideologies are debated and knowledge is shared. Most Hong Kong students don’t publicly talk about these subjects, because we fear the white terror that shadows over us by the CCP. Outspoken individuals have been banned from entering China and we fear any future consequences taken against us.
“We hope that university recognises itself as an institution of ideals and opinions, upholding freedom of speech and condemning actions against it. Better and safer channels of discussion would be highly appreciated. Discussions on the topic should not be a taboo but promoted. Like the many great thinkers before us, conflict of ideals spark innovation and progress.”
Adding to the irony is a statement from the Socialist Alternative that put a typically woke spin on the pro-freedom protests. “We oppose all forms of racial discrimination,” said Priya De of Socialist Alternative, according to This Week in Asia. “There is a deep history of anti-Chinese racism in Australia, which has been given an outlet through this protest.”
As the founder of Australia’s first university, William Charles Wentworth once said, the university should be “open to all, though influenced by none.”
What a way to desecrate his legacy.
- Additional reporting by Fred Pawle