In September of this year, The Chronicle reported that Duke paid for three Chinese journalists to visit campus in Durham and get a clearer picture of how the University operates in the United States. The article was then updated to reflect that it was actually Duke Kunshan University which paid for the Chinese journalists’ visit, thereby establishing DKU as a financial institution separate from Duke University. This may seem like a reasonable, unsurprising decision—DKU’s operation is substantive enough to demand its own finances, and the context DKU operates within is dramatically different from Duke in Durham. Some of the reasoning behind other financial and governing decisions concerning DKU, however, seems less intuitive. And as institutional control becomes more removed from Duke, it becomes more difficult to determine if our DKU leadership and Chinese partners will make decisions with the same institutional values we uphold in Durham.
Financially, DKU’s initial investment in the project pales in comparison to the amount of money invested by the government of Kunshan. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the government of Kunshan has invested $260 million into DKU, and Duke will invest $37 million over the next six years of operation. This is a trend throughout all of China. Chinese governments and universities are willing to heavily subsidize American universities in China with the hope of bolstering their own reputations.
In addition to the proportionally small financial contribution, the actual governing of DKU exists detached from Duke. DKU will not be subject to the same rules and governing processes as Duke University. Much of the decision making process at DKU will be left up to either the Chinese Ministry of Education or the DKU Board of Trustees, which is a separate governing body from the Duke Board of Trustees. An example of this would be DKU waiting for the Chinese Ministry of Education to approve tuition rates, which remain undetermined. In addition, policies concerning hiring, accountability and all other governing matters will be determined by the DKU Board of Trustees.
The majority of the DKU Board of Trustees is Chinese with either connections to Wuhan—our partner institution—or the government of Kunshan. Although the board has a Chinese majority, at least one Duke vote is required to pass any policy at the board level. This process seems somewhat arbitrary. Why is only one Duke vote required? Why is there a Duke vote required at all? Why not just simple majority? I think we are potentially underestimating the consequences of having a governing process far removed from how we operate at Duke. It is not possible to assume that Duke members will have unanimous positions on all DKU decisions, so only requiring one Duke vote does not necessarily guarantee the protection of a Duke veto.
Although it has been assured there will be a commitment to certain academic and institutional values at DKU, some are skeptical as to how practical this will be in application.
Critics of American universities operating in China say that Chinese staff members know they must still “watch their words.” Any sort of political maneuvering or overt caution from members of the DKU Board of Trustees will impact governing decisions. Other peer institutions with campuses in China are facing the same obstacles. Elizabeth Knup, the former American director of the Hopkins-Nanjing center which has hosted both foreign and Chinese students said, “American faculty were never restricted in any way… but it is hard to know which restrictions Chinese faculty put on themselves.”
Xia Yeliang, who was dismissed from Peking University because of his political opinions, argues that China has become increasingly assertive and feels like it can “call the shots” in a partnership with an American university. Considering Kunshan is the primary financial contributor and Kunshan and Wuhan hold more positions on the DKU Board of Trustees, this assumption makes sense. I’m sure all members of the DKU Board of Trustees are aware of the academic and professional standards Duke tries to uphold, but where the boundary will be drawn in actual practice on certain issues remains unclear.
Thomas Cushman, a professor from Wellesley College—which entered a partnership with Peking University in June—stated, “We think it’s a real mistake to enter into arrangements with authoritarian societies without any conditions whatsoever, without any kind of sense of basic rules of engagement.” DKU’s institutional charter, which included details on academic freedom, was approved by the Chinese Ministry of Education. Besides that charter, the remaining “basic rules of engagement” will be left up to the DKU Board of Trustees to decide, and as our peer universities have shown us, there is no guarantee Chinese faculty will not make their own politically-calculated and self-restricted decisions—decisions that could impact the integrity of Duke Kunshan University.
Adrienne Harreveld is a Trinity senior. Her column runs every other Friday. Send Adrienne a message on Twitter @AdrienneLiege.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.