3

Benefits and Risks of Foreign-Funded Language and Culture Institutes

This chapter presents a benefit-cost framework for assessing the risks associated with hosting a foreign-funded language and culture institute at a U.S. institution of higher education. In the committee’s previous report, it provided a detailed approach to Confucius Institutes (CIs) and recommendations for criteria in a waiver process. That report captured benefits and risks specific to CIs. The committee has been charged in this report to go beyond that specific example and consider other foreign-funded language and culture programs. To address that charge, the committee drew upon its earlier analysis of CIs to describe characteristics and features associated with foreign-funded programs at U.S. colleges and universities that would lead to further deliberation and vetting as to whether to enter into a partnership or not. In that regard, it was as important for the committee to understand and describe the benefits that an institution of higher education might realize from a foreign-funded language and culture institute as it was to understand the risks that such an institute might create for that institution. This chapter also discusses one potential strategy to mitigate the risks associated with hosting a foreign-funded language and culture institute, with Chapter 4 providing a more in-depth discussion of implementable practices for identifying, assessing, and managing the risks this chapter identifies.

BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH FOREIGN-FUNDED LANGUAGE AND CULTURE INSTITUTES

In its report Engagement with China: Recommendations for American Colleges and Universities, the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations states that cooperation with China offers U.S. colleges and universities the “chance to

enhance university life through promoting scientific and intellectual collaboration, increasing the diversity of their faculty and students, boosting enrollment and tuition revenue, and contributing to university development efforts” through alumni and other giving (NCUSCR, 2019). The committee argues that this holds for all international collaborations, not exclusively those taking place with China.

International engagement strategies foster a culture and environment in universities that enriches individuals with the competencies and cross-cultural skills necessary to succeed in the global innovation economy and develop an understanding of global issues (DeLaquil et al., 2022). International engagement also benefits the research enterprise, as international collaboration provides opportunities to share experience, data, and methods that can lead to new perspectives on existing approaches to address scientific and technological challenges (Rolfe et al., 2004). Relationships fostered through international engagement can lead to formal international research collaborations, which analysis of the published literature has shown to have increased markedly over the past four decades (Adams, 2013, 2017; NRC, 2008).

Language and culture programs are the underpinning of a talent pipeline that can communicate and appreciate the history and culture of societies, economies, and people across many different facets. Historically, the nation has relied on experts in area studies to help craft effective strategies to navigate options throughout times of discord such as the Cold War and post-9/11 conflicts. Language skills and cultural understanding also play a key role in sustaining peace by contributing to nonadversarial international collaborative efforts, such as approaches in global health, climate change, and counterterrorism. Language is critical, but it is also important to ensure that education in those languages is done in the context of culture and geopolitical realities. This value underpins the Department of Defense-led National Security Education Program, which states its primary mission is “to develop a pipeline of foreign language and culture expertise for the U.S. federal government workforce” (NSEP, 2023).

Establishing ambitious international engagement strategies requires significant resources, infrastructure, and funding. Institutions that are better resourced are more likely to have the capacity to develop and implement ambitious strategies, while institutions that are less resourced may have emerging or aspirational strategies, if they have them at all. As such, it is important to acknowledge and address the resource constraints that different institutions may face and support them in developing effective international engagement strategies.

In fact, one of the benefits of hosting foreign-funded language and culture institutes for a less-resourced institution is that they can provide resources and funding for language instruction the institution might not otherwise be able to offer its students. As the first report from this committee (NASEM, 2023) noted, for institutions with existing language programs, hosting a foreign-funded language and culture institute can enable them to offer introductory-level courses to more students, provide advanced-level courses that would otherwise be

unavailable, and create noncredit language courses for members of the local business community (Kaleem et al., 2022).

Other benefits of hosting a foreign-funded language and culture institute that the committee identified in its first report include the following (NASEM, 2023):

• Creating opportunities for students to study abroad, which can be particularly valuable for institutions with a significant number of students from lower socioeconomic groups (Tufts University, 2019).
• Providing cultural enrichment experiences on campus and in surrounding communities (Fowler, 2018).
• Serving as a convener to bring together faculty members whose research relates to the country sponsoring the institute.
• Supporting the internationalization and economic missions of U.S. institutions and their integration into local, state, national, and international businesses.

The range of international engagement strategies that institutions of higher education have adopted varies widely (see Appendix F for a collection of international engagement strategy documents developed by a sampling of U.S. institutions of higher education). Some institutions may explore international engagement policies in the initial stages of development through working groups or committees. Others may have aspirational goals for increasing their international engagement but lack key resources, personnel, or funding. Some universities have already implemented ambitious strategies that are fully realized, with the necessary infrastructure, personnel, and momentum to implement and expand international programs. These strategies include student and faculty travel, visiting scholar sponsorship, fellowship opportunities, participation in international research collaborations, establishing diplomatic and embassy relations, mandating foreign language proficiency, enhancing the university’s global reputation, and promoting diversity and cultural awareness to the curriculum. To ensure these engagements uphold academic values and transparency, some institutions outline policies and guidelines that detail expectations for behavior, operational support, and procedures to assess the opportunity costs of engaging in international activities. For example, the University of California, Berkeley, has a suite of resources and guidelines regarding international agreements, including guiding principles for international partnerships.¹

___________________

¹ See International Agreement Resources & Guidelines web page at https://globalengagement.berkeley.edu/international-agreements-resources-and-campus-guidelines.

RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH FOREIGN-FUNDED LANGUAGE AND CULTURE INSTITUTES

In its initial report (NASEM, 2023), the committee identified three broad categories of risk associated with CIs that pertain to any foreign-funded language and culture institute: (1) academic freedom and freedom of expression, (2) effective academic governance, and (3) research security and the protection of intellectual property. Other risks include reputational risk, the possibility of faculty participating in foreign talent programs without proper disclosure, harassment of students and faculty by foreign actors, and receiving funding from a U.S. strategic competitor who seeks to exploit the U.S. research enterprise to avoid the costs and risks of conducting their own research.

Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression

As the committee’s first report stated, academic freedom and freedom of expression and dissent are the foundations of the research, teaching, and learning environment at U.S. colleges and universities. Together, they guarantee that students and faculty members can express their views, in free and open intellectual debate and without censorship or sanction. They also guarantee students and faculty the right to pursue academic inquiry on whatever topic they choose and without fear that others will impose their views—including political views—on them or influence the direction of their scholarly inquiry (NASEM, 2023). Academic freedom is essential not only for faculty and staff to produce new knowledge and teach with the most up-to-date information but also to participate in public debates on potentially sensitive topics.²

There is some risk, for example, that the presence of a foreign-funded language and culture institute, and the funds that come with that arrangement, can stifle discussions on topics that the foreign partner finds offensive or culturally inappropriate. Students from the foreign sponsor may have reason to feel intimidated or uncomfortable by the presence on campus of faculty or staff chosen by the foreign partner. In addition, there is the possibility that instructors in a foreign-funded language and culture institute may use teaching materials to disseminate propaganda or paint a view of a country’s political and social realities that differs from how the United States understands such political and social realities.

___________________

² The University of Oslo and Scholars at Risk’s Dangerous Questions: Why Academic Freedom Matters is an online training that provides an overview of academic freedom and how it relates to core higher education and societal values. See https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/2018/05/online-course-dangerous-questions-why-academic-freedom-matters/.

Effective Academic Governance

Academic governance refers to the policies, structures, relationships, systems, and processes that collectively provide oversight of a college or university’s academic activities and research processes. In short, academic governance is the set of rules by which colleges and universities govern themselves: “Under the principle of shared governance, it is the joint responsibility of faculty, administrators, and governing bodies to govern U.S. universities” (AAUP, 1966; quoted in NASEM, 2023). And as the committee stated in the first report, within this governance model, faculty members play a critical role in overseeing academic matters and participating in decision-making in areas such as faculty appointments and curriculum (NASEM, 2023). The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), in its Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement, notes that the absence of undue influence from external sources is integral to strong governance (SACSCOC, 2017). SACSCOC and other higher education accrediting bodies, such as the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), all require an institution to demonstrate effective governance structures for accreditation.

However, foreign-funded language and culture institutes may sit outside the governance system of the host university. This is a concern the American Association of University Professors has raised, stating that “allowing any third-party control of academic matters is inconsistent with the principles of . . . shared governance” (AAUP, 2014). As stated in the first report, governance can be an issue if the foreign organization selects the teaching staff it recommends for appointment and if the institute’s instructors are appointed without going through normal hiring channels subject to faculty oversight. In addition, an institute’s senior leadership may not report through academic leadership or be subjected to sufficient oversight (NASEM, 2023). MSCHE’s Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education, for example, outlines standards for accreditation requiring universities with shared governance to establish an independent and expert governance structure to ensure the academic integrity, quality, and policy of the institution. The members of the governing body are obligated to “have primary responsibility to the accredited institution and should not allow political or other influences to interfere with governing body duties” (MSCHE, 2006).

Addressing these concerns requires transparency that any agreement between the foreign entity and the academic institution should codify. It is also critical that any institutions hosting a foreign-funded language and culture institute assert the primacy of U.S. law on U.S. campuses in any agreement regarding the funding and the operations of the institute. Furthermore, any foreign-funded language and culture entity should be constituted as an official institute or other formal structure to ensure that it falls under the provisions of the institution’s governance structures.

Research Security and the Protection of Intellectual Property

One potential risk of hosting a foreign-funded language and culture institute is the possible access of the institute to the research being done at the host college or university or the influence that the institute might have on opening academic collaborations outside of the institute’s areas of language and culture. By themselves, new academic collaborations or access to public domain research do not present a risk, but if the collaborations do not have reciprocal transparency and if the research is being used for undisclosed dual purposes in the nation sponsoring the foreign-funded language and culture institute, there is a risk to the integrity and core values of the U.S. research enterprise.

For example, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ report The Middle Kingdom Meets Higher Education states that “of the 28 universities currently hosting a CI [in 2021], 10 maintain active sister-school relationships with Chinese universities conducting classified research in support of China’s defense establishment” (FDD, 2021). The report continues to state that “at present, U.S. universities are under no legal or regulatory obligation to sever ties with Chinese universities supporting China’s military, even when those Chinese universities appear on the Entity List.” A related risk is that U.S. institutions might continue to partner with universities of concern in a country that sponsors a foreign-funded language and culture institute even after the foreign-funded language and culture institute ends operations (FDD, 2021). These activities may become decentralized and independent from a foreign-funded language and culture institute but may have been born from the creation of a foreign-funded language and culture institute.

To ameliorate these risks, U.S. host institutions should carefully consider the foreign nation with whom they are partnering, if a partner nation is considered a “country of concern.” However, a risk assessment ultimately should be based on behavior or activity, since countries of concern (see Box 3-1) are fluid and change over time. Chapter 4 provides additional information on risk assessments.

The Implementation Guidance document for National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 (NSPM-33) states that everyone involved in the research enterprise has a role in research security and data management (JCORE, 2022). The guidance document for NSPM-33 also states that everyone involved in research has a role in maintaining the core values of American leadership in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research and development, including openness, transparency, honesty, equity, fair competition, and democratic values. In particular, the research enterprise at a U.S. academic institution should embrace these and the freedom to explore research topics that may be controversial. Therefore, weighing the values of any partnership, foreign or domestic, against the risks that a given partnership poses on American academic core values should be part of a careful benefit/risk analysis as the relationship progresses.

As stated in the first report (NASEM, 2023), campuses hosting classified research must adhere to strict requirements issued by the National Industrial Security Program (NISP) and, in particular, those detailed in the National

Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM).³ If a campus engages in classified work, the university must have a government sponsor, apply for and receive a facility security clearance, and abide by the rules and regulations required to maintain such clearance. Institutions hosting a foreign-funded language and culture institute should protect this work or research not only from a foreign-funded language and culture institute, but also from any unauthorized access at the university. The committee reiterates its belief that no additional risk is posed by the conduct of classified research on a campus hosting a foreign-funded language and culture institute, including a CI, as long as the campus complies with NISP and NISPOM requirements.

Universities across the United States have developed and implemented strategies for direct collaboration with scholars and institutions worldwide (see Appendix F for a collection of international engagement strategy documents developed by a sampling of U.S. institutions of higher education). These international engagement strategies set formal goals and practices that guide the university’s interaction with international partners.

___________________

³ National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, 32 CFR part 2004. Available at https://www.dcsa.mil/mc/isd/nisp/.