Consensus Study Report
NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-69486-5
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-69486-8
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26747
This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2023 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Confucius Institutes at U.S. Institutions of Higher Education: Waiver Criteria for the Department of Defense. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26747.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON CONFUCIUS INSTITUTES AT U.S. INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
PHILIP J. HANLON (Chair), President and Professor of Mathematics, Dartmouth College
JAYATHI Y. MURTHY (Vice Chair) [NAE],* President and Professor of Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Oregon State University
HANNAH L. BUXBAUM, Vice President for International Affairs and Professor of Law and John E. Schiller Chair, Indiana University
CLAUDE R. CANIZARES [NAS], Bruno Rossi Professor of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ROBERT L. DALY, Director, Kissinger Institute on China and the United States, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
PETER K. DORHOUT, Vice President for Research and Professor of Chemistry, Iowa State University
MELISSA L. FLAGG, Founder, Flagg Consulting LLC
MARY GALLAGHER, Lowenstein Professor of Democracy, Democratization, and Human Rights, University of Michigan
JENNY J. LEE, Professor in the Department of Educational Policy Studies and Practice, University of Arizona
IVETT A. LEYVA, College of Engineering Excellence Professor and Department Head of Aerospace Engineering, Texas A&M University
ELIZABETH D. PELOSO, Associate Vice President and Associate Vice Provost of Research Services, University of Pennsylvania
JEFFREY M. RIEDINGER, Vice Provost of Global Affairs and Professor of Law, University of Washington
C. REYNOLD VERRET, President and Professor of Biochemistry, Xavier University of Louisiana
Study Staff
SARAH M. ROVITO, Study Director and Senior Program Officer, U.S. Science and Innovation Policy
TOM WANG, Policy Theme Lead and Senior Board Director, U.S. Science and Innovation Policy
FRAZIER F. BENYA, Senior Program Officer, U.S. Science and Innovation Policy
ANITA EISENSTADT, Program Officer, U.S. Science and Innovation Policy (through May 2022)
__________________
* Designates membership in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Academy of Engineering (NAE), or National Academy of Medicine (NAM).
JOHN VERAS, Research Associate, U.S. Science and Innovation Policy
LESLEY SNYDER, Senior Program Assistant, U.S. Science and Innovation Policy (April to August 2022)
CLARA HARVEY-SAVAGE, Senior Finance Business Partner
Consultants
JOE ALPER, Consulting Writer
KORANTEMA KALEEM, Researcher, American Institutes for Research
JASMINE HOWARD, Qualitative Research Associate, American Institutes for Research
KELLIE MACDONALD, Research Associate, American Institutes for Research
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. This independent review provides candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank these individuals for their review of this report:
Duane Blackburn, The MITRE Corporation; Frank Calzonetti, University of Toledo; Jim Cooney, Colorado State University (ret.); Arthur Ellis, Elsevier; Delores Etter, Southern Methodist University (ret.); Thomas Gold, University of California, Berkeley; Allan Goodman, Institute of International Education; Sheena Chestnut Greitens, University of Texas at Austin; Bruce Held, U.S. Department of Energy (ret.); James Holloway, University of New Mexico; S. Jack Hu, University of Georgia; Susan Pertel Jain, University of California, Los Angeles; Brendan Mulvaney, National Defense University; Pamela Norris, The George Washington University; Bill Priestap, Trenchcoat Advisors LLC; and Hank Reichman, California State University-East Bay (ret.).
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review
of this report was overseen by Julia Phillips, Sandia National Laboratories (ret.) and Jared Cohon, Carnegie Mellon University (ret.). They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
Acknowledgments
The committee acknowledges the U.S. Department of Defense for its support of this study.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PRESENTERS
The committee gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following individuals during open, public sessions held in support of the Confucius Institutes at U.S. Institutions of Higher Education consensus study:
April 8, 2022
- Bindu Nair, Director of Basic Research, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, U.S. Department of Defense
April 29, 2022
- Joan Brzezinski, Executive Director, China Center, University of Minnesota
- Randy Kluver, Dean, School of Global Studies and Partnerships, and Professor, School of Media and Strategic Communication, Oklahoma State University
June 22, 2022
- Naima Green-Riley, Assistant Professor, Department of Politics and School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
- Denis Simon, Senior Adviser to the President for China Affairs, Duke University
- Sarah Spreitzer, Assistant Vice President and Chief of Staff, Government Relations, American Council on Education
- Richard Meserve, President Emeritus, Carnegie Institution for Science; Senior of Counsel, Covington & Burling LLP; Co-chair, National Science, Technology, and Security Roundtable, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
July 20, 2022
- Jeffrey Lehman, Vice Chancellor and Professor of Law, New York University Shanghai
- Arun Seraphin, Deputy Director, Emerging Technologies Institute, National Defense Industrial Association
- Kevin Gamache, Associate Vice Chancellor and Chief Research Security Officer, Office of Research, The Texas A&M University System
- Emily Weinstein, Research Fellow, Center for Security and Emerging Technology, Georgetown University
August 16–17, 2022
- Nelson Dong, Partner, Dorsey & Whitney LLP
- Eli Friedman, Associate Professor and Chair of International and Comparative Labor, ILR School, Cornell University
- Peidong Sun, Associate Professor of History and Distinguished Associate Professor of Arts & Sciences in China and Asia-Pacific Studies, Department of History, Cornell University
- Yaqiu Wang, Senior China Researcher, Human Rights Watch
Contents
Report Purpose, Charge, and Approach
2 CHARACTERISTICS AND FEATURES OF CONFUCIUS INSTITUTES
Relationship of Confucius Institutes with U.S. Campuses
Relationship of Paired Chinese Institutions of Higher Education with U.S. Campuses
3 BENEFITS AND RISKS POSED BY CONFUCIUS INSTITUTES TO ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS
Benefits to U.S. Institutions of Higher Education Hosting a Confucius Institute
Risks to U.S. Institutions of Higher Education Hosting a Confucius Institute
4 RISKS POSED BY CONFUCIUS INSTITUTES TO DOD-FUNDED RESEARCH
Relationship Between Confucius Institutes and DOD-Funded Research
Risks Posed by Confucius Institutes to DOD-Funded Research
Findings Regarding Background and Context
Findings Regarding the Effect of CIs on Academic Freedom and University Governance
Findings Regarding the Effect of CIs on DOD-Funded Research
6 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING OF A WAIVER
A COMMITTEE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
B LISTING OF OPEN, CLOSING, AND PAUSED U.S. CONFUCIUS INSTITUTES
C OVERVIEW OF DOD-SPONSORED FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH
D CLOSURE REASONS FOR U.S. CIs USING NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOLARS DATA
Preface
China has emerged as a global power, and its influence on the technological, industrial, and cultural landscape has grown enormously over the past 30 years. As leaders of U.S. institutions of higher education, we have long recognized the importance of understanding and engaging with China. We believe it is critical to develop U.S. citizens who understand Chinese language and culture and have deep expertise on China so that we can engage this emerging world power in a deep, nuanced, and clear-eyed way. Confucius Institutes (CIs), Chinese government-funded language and culture centers, have offered U.S. universities and their surrounding communities one pathway for building capacity in Chinese language and culture by expanding cocurricular programming and growing research relationships with Chinese partner universities.
And yet, the establishment of CIs on U.S. campuses comes with potential threats to cherished ideals and research security. We believe that the success of U.S. higher education rests crucially on protecting academic freedom as well as freedom of expression and dissent. Our students and faculty must be free to pursue any direction of intellectual inquiry they wish, and our campuses must be places where those of differing views engage in civil and respectful dialogue. It is this difference in values coupled with the strategic competition between the United States and China that gave rise to the concerns underlying this report.
We recognize the national security community’s legitimate concerns regarding the presence of foreign-funded programs on campus, including the potential for espionage and intellectual property theft. We agree that research conducted on our campuses sponsored by the Department of Defense (DOD), the U.S. government, industry, and other organizations needs to be secured appropriately in order to protect innovations and mitigate risks, while maintaining the openness and
international collaborations that allow America’s research enterprise to flourish. Furthermore, we must be careful to distinguish the actions of the Chinese state from those of individual Chinese citizens, and especially faculty and students of Chinese origin on U.S. campuses, who have been invaluable contributors to scientific, technological, and economic progress. We acknowledge that the lack of distinction between the Chinese state and Chinese people can result in harmful and racist actions.
Responding to a request from Congress, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) formed an ad hoc committee to develop waiver criteria to potentially permit the continued presence of CIs on U.S. university campuses that also receive DOD funding. The committee’s Statement of Task was developed with DOD in response to Section 1062 of the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The committee’s charge for this report was to develop a set of waiver criteria that DOD could use to create a waiver process for use on the first day of Fiscal Year 2024 (October 1, 2023). Receiving a waiver would allow a U.S. institution of higher education hosting a CI and receiving DOD funding to continue to do both, given that appropriate safeguards are in place. The committee’s focus has been to understand the attributes of CIs that create risks; to formulate waiver criteria that determine whether appropriate steps have been taken to mitigate those risks; and to ensure that these waiver criteria are straightforward to implement and are appropriate for an open campus. The committee sought only to formulate the criteria; DOD is expected to create and implement a workable waiver process. A second report, expected in June 2023, will address foreign-funded programs on campus and international partnerships more broadly.
The committee finds that CIs are one aspect of a long-term coordinated plan by the Chinese Communist Party to influence global perceptions of China and that the structure of a typical CI makes it a potential vehicle for direct oversight and intervention by the Chinese government. Rather than addressing CIs separately, DOD should adopt an integrated approach to addressing broader security concerns on U.S. campuses. Waiver criteria recommended by the committee include a demonstration by U.S. host institutions that they fully comply with all applicable DOD requirements for information, data, and research security; that they possess full managerial and fiduciary control of the CI; and that the CI adheres to key values of shared governance, openness, and academic freedom espoused by U.S. universities. Most importantly, if the host institution has demonstrated compliance with DOD’s waiver criteria and waiver processes and if DOD is not aware of any relevant adverse information, a waiver should be granted in a reasonable time frame.
We would like to conclude with a note of deep appreciation for the hard work by the committee members who generously volunteered their time and expertise; the many experts who shared their knowledge and deep experience with our
committee; the consultants at the American Institutes for Research who helped infuse our discussions with on-the-ground experiences of CI personnel; consultant writer Joe Alper, who helped shape our discussions into a coherent and readable form; and finally, the support provided by the staff at the National Academies, led by the extraordinarily able and efficient Sarah Rovito. We hope the diversity of opinions and experiences of this group have helped create a consensus report that will not only protect national security and academic freedoms but also enable U.S. universities to continue to be world leaders in higher education.
Philip J. Hanlon, Chair
Jayathi Y. Murthy, Vice Chair
Committee on Confucius Institutes at U.S. Institutions of Higher Education
This page intentionally left blank.
