Confucius Institute

Confucius Institutes (Chinese: 孔子学院; pinyin: Kǒngzǐ Xuéyuàn) are public educational partnerships between colleges and universities in China and colleges and universities in other countries; the partnerships are funded and arranged in part by Hanban which is itself affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Education.[1] The stated aim of the program is to promote Chinese language and culture, support local Chinese teaching internationally, and facilitate cultural exchanges.[2][3] The organization has been criticized due to concerns of rising Chinese influences in the countries in which it operates,[4] however many programs have renegotiated their contracts to protect the academic freedom of host universities[5].

Confucius Institute
Founded2004 (2004)
TypeCultural promotion organization
FocusChinese culture, Chinese language
Location
Area served
Worldwide
MethodEducation and Advocacy
OwnerMinistry of Education of the People's Republic of China
Websitewww.hanban.org
Confucius Institute
Traditional Chinese孔子學院
Simplified Chinese孔子学院
Confucius Institute of Brittany in Rennes, France
A Confucius Institute at Seneca College in Toronto, Canada

The Confucius Institute program began in 2004 and is overseen by Hanban (officially the Office of Chinese Language Council International). The institutes operate in co-operation with local affiliate colleges and universities around the world, and financing is shared between Hanban and the host institutions. The related Confucius Classroom program partners with local secondary schools or school districts to provide teachers and instructional materials.[6][7]

Officials from China have compared Confucius Institutes to language and culture promotion organizations such as Portugal's Instituto Camões, Britain's British Council, France's Alliance Française, Italy's Società Dante Alighieri, Spain's Instituto Cervantes and Germany's Goethe-Institut—several of them named for an iconic cultural figure identified with that country, as Confucius is identified with China.[8] Some commentators argue that, unlike these organizations, many Confucius Institutes operate directly on university campuses, thus giving rise to what they allege to be unique concerns related to academic freedom and political influence.[9]

History

The first Confucius Institute (CI) opened on 21 November 2004 in Seoul, South Korea, after establishing a pilot institute in Tashkent, Uzbekistan in June 2004. The CI in South Korea is no longer active. The second Confucius Institute was opened on the campus of the University of Maryland, College Park, also in November 2004.[10] Hundreds more have opened since in dozens of countries around the world, with the highest concentration of Institutes in the United States, Japan, and South Korea.[11]

In April 2007, the first research-based Confucius Institute opened in Waseda University in Japan. In partnership with Peking University, the program promotes research activities of graduate students studying Chinese.[12]

As of 2019, there are 530 Confucius Institutes in dozens of countries on six continents.[13][14][15] The Ministry of Education estimates that 100 million people overseas may be learning Chinese by 2010 and the program is expanding rapidly in order to keep up.[16]

Hanban aims to establish 1,000 Confucius Institutes by 2020.[17]

Name

The Confucius Institute is named after the noted Chinese philosopher Confucius (551–479 BC). Throughout the 20th century, Communist Party of China (CPC) leaders criticized and denounced Confucius as the personification of China's "feudal" traditions, with anti-Confucianism ranging from the 1912 New Culture Movement to the 1973 Criticize Lin, Criticize Confucius campaign during the Cultural Revolution.[18] However, in recent decades, interest in pre-modern Chinese culture has grown in the country, and Confucius in particular has seen a resurgence in popularity.[19] Outside of China, Confucius is a generally recognizable symbol of Chinese culture, removed from the negative associations of other prominent Chinese figures such as chairman Mao Zedong.[20]

"Confucius Institute" is a trademarked brand name, which according to a spokesman for the organisation, "Those who enjoy more brand names will enjoy higher popularity, reputation, more social influence, and will therefore be able to generate more support from local communities."[21] A 2011 crackdown protected "Confucius Institute" from preregistration infringement in Costa Rica.[22]

A China Post article reported in 2014 that "Certainly, China would have made little headway if it had named these Mao Institutes, or even Deng Xiaoping Institutes. But by borrowing the name Confucius, it created a brand that was instantly recognized as a symbol of Chinese culture, radically different from the image of the Communist Party."[23]

Kerry Brown, Professor of Chinese Politics at the University of Sydney, notes the irony that the CPC now lionizing Confucius had vilified him just four decades previously for his association with patriarchal, hierarchical, and conservative values.[24]

Purpose
British Foreign Secretary William Hague and Li Changchun at a signing ceremony in London, 17 April 2012, for the agreement between Confucius Institute of China and Bangor University on the establishment of Confucius Institute at Bangor University, United Kingdom. The agreement was signed by John Hughes, Vice-Chancellor of Bangor University, and Xu Lin, Director of the Confucius Institute.

Confucius Institutes (CIs) promote and teach Chinese culture and language around the world. CIs develop Chinese language courses, train teachers, hold the HSK Examination (Chinese proficiency test), host cultural and artistic presentations, and provide information about contemporary China.[25] The director of the CI program, Xu Lin, stated that CIs were started to cater to the sudden uptick in interest of the Chinese language around the world. They also provide Chinese language teaching staff from Mainland China. As of 2011, there were 200 such teachers working in the United States.[26]

Political goals

The Confucius Institute also has non-academic goals. Li Changchun, the 5th-highest-ranking member of the Politburo Standing Committee, was quoted in The Economist saying that the Confucius Institutes were "an important part of China's overseas propaganda set-up". The statement has been seized upon by critics as evidence of a politicized mission.[4] Many foreign scholars have characterized the CI program as an exercise in soft power, expanding China's economic, cultural, and diplomatic reach through the promotion of Chinese language and culture,[27][28] while others have suggested a possible role in intelligence collection.[29][30] The soft power goals also include assuaging concerns of a "China threat" in the context of the country's increasingly powerful economy and military.[31]

Retired British diplomat and China expert Roger Garside concludes in his submission to the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission that “academic freedom is inherently compromised by permitting a state agency controlled by the Communist Party of China to establish a teaching operation in any school or university.”[32]

While Chinese authorities have been cautious not to have CIs act as direct promoters of the party's political viewpoints, a few suggest that the Confucius Institutes function in this way. Officials say that one important goal of the Institutes is to influence other countries' view of China.[33] Peng Ming-min, a Taiwan independence activist and politician, claims that colleges and universities where a Confucius Institute is established have to sign a contract in which they declare their support for Beijing's "One China" policy. As a result, both Taiwan and Tibet become taboo at the institutes.[34] However, this claim is in dispute. Michael Nylan, professor of Chinese history at the University of California at Berkeley, stated that CIs have become less heavy-handed in their demands, and have learnt from "early missteps", such as insisting that universities adopt a policy that Taiwan is part of China. Nylan's survey of faculty and administrators at fifteen universities with Confucius Institutes revealed two reports that institutes had exerted pressure to block guest speakers, but both events went ahead anyway.[35]

The CI's soft power goals are seen as an attempt by the PRC to modernize away from Soviet-influenced propaganda of the Maoist era.[36] Other initiatives include Chinese contemporary art exhibitions, television programs, concerts by popular singers, translations of Chinese literature, and the expansion of state-run news channels such as Xinhua News Agency and China Central Television.[37]

Organization

Hanban is a non-profit government organization,[38] though it is connected with the Ministry of Education and has close ties to a number of senior Communist Party officials. The Confucius Institute headquarters in Beijing establishes the guidelines which the separate Confucius Institutes worldwide follows. The headquarters is governed by a council with fifteen members, ten of whom are directors of overseas institutes.[39] The Institutes themselves are individually managed under the leadership of their own board of directors, which should include members of the host institution.[40] The current chair of the Confucius Institute Headquarters council is Liu Yandong,[41][42] a Chinese vice premier and member of the Chinese Communist Party Politburo who formerly headed the United Front Work Department. Other leaders of the council are similarly drawn from the Communist Party and central government agencies, such as the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Education, and the State Council Information Office (also known as the Office of Overseas Propaganda).[9][43] The council sets the agenda for the Confucius Institutes and makes changes to the bylaws while other tasks and ongoing management of the Confucius Institute Headquarters are handled by the professional executive leadership headed by the director-general.[44][45]

The Chinese Government shares the burden of funding Confucius Institutes with host universities, and takes a hands-off approach to management.[46] The Institutes function independently within the guidelines established by Hanban and the Confucius Institute Headquarters. Each Institute is responsible for drawing up and managing their own budget, which is subject to approval by the headquarters. The Confucius Institute Headquarters provides various restrictions on how their funds may be used, including earmarking funds for specific purposes.[47] Institutes in the United States are generally provided with $100,000 annually from Hanban, with the local university required to match funding.[48]

In addition to their local-partner university, Confucius Institutes operate in co-operation with a Chinese partner university.[49] Many Institutes are governed by a board which is composed of several members from the Chinese partner school, with the remaining members affiliated with the local-partner university.[50] At most Institutes, the director is appointed by the local partner university.[46]

Hiring policy controversy

The Hanban website stated that Chinese language instructors should be "aged between 22 to 60, physical and mental healthy, no record of participation in Falun Gong and other illegal organizations, and no criminal record."[51] In many universities, the employer is the Chinese government, not the university.

Human rights lawyer Clive Ansley has argued that the part of the hiring policy that discriminates against Falun Gong believers is in contravention of anti-discrimination laws and human rights codes.[52] Marci Hamilton, Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Yeshiva University, called this policy "unethical and illegal in the free world."[53]

In 2013, McMaster University in Canada closed its Confucius Institute due to hiring issues over Falun Gong.[54]

Curriculum

The curriculum of Confucius Institutes is based on the institute's role as a language center.[33] Confucius Institutes teach simplified Chinese characters, which are standard in Mainland China, rather than the traditional Chinese characters used in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Confucius Institutes provide a sanitized view of Chinese society which avoids contentious topics like human rights abuses and Tibet.[55]

Reception and controversies
Main article: Criticism of Confucius Institutes

In the short time-frame of their rapid expansion, the Institutes have been the subject of much controversy. Criticisms of the Institutes have included administrative concerns about finance, academic viability, legal issues, and relations with the Chinese partner university, as well as broader concerns about improper influence over teaching and research, industrial and military espionage,[29][30] surveillance of Chinese abroad, and undermining Taiwanese influence.[56] There has also been organized opposition to the establishment of a Confucius Institute at University of Melbourne,[57] University of Manitoba,[58] Stockholm University,[59][60] University of Chicago[61] and many others. More significantly, some universities that hosted Confucius Institutes decided to terminate their contracts. These include Japan's Osaka Sangyo University in 2010;[62] Canada's McMaster University and Université de Sherbrooke,[63][64] and France's University of Lyon in 2013;[23] the University of Chicago, Pennsylvania State University, and the Toronto District School Board in 2014,[65][66][67] the German Stuttgart Media University and University of Hohenheim in 2015,[68][69] and Vrije Universiteit Brussel in 2019.[70]

Controversy regarding Confucius Institutes in the US, Australian, and Canadian press includes criticism that unlike other governments' language and culture promotion organizations, the Confucius Institutes operate within established universities, colleges, and secondary schools around the world, providing funding, teachers and educational materials.[9][29][71] This has raised concerns over their influence on academic freedom, the possibility of industrial espionage,[72] and concerns that the institutes present a selective and politicized view of China as a means of advancing the country's soft power internationally.[9][71][73]

Underlying such opposition is concern by professors that a Confucius Institute would interfere with academic freedom and be able to pressure the university to censor speech on topics the Communist Party of China objects to.[74] An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education asserts that there is little evidence of meddling from China, although the same article did go on to say the Institutes were "distinct in the degree to which they were financed and managed by a foreign government."[48] After interviewing China scholars, journalists and CI directors, a writer for The Diplomat also found little support for the concern that CIs would serve as propaganda vehicles, though some of her sources did note that they would face constraints in their curriculum on matters such as Tibet and human rights.[75] An article in The New York Times quotes Arthur Waldron, a professor of international relations at the University of Pennsylvania, saying that the key issue is academic independence. "Once you have a Confucius Institute on campus, you have a second source of opinions and authority that is ultimately answerable to the Chinese Communist Party and which is not subject to scholarly review."[76]

In October 2013, University of Chicago professor Marshall Sahlins published an extensive investigative article criticizing the Confucius Institutes and the universities hosting them.[77] Later, more than 100 faculty members signed a protest against the Confucius Institute at the University of Chicago.[78] In September 2014, the University of Chicago suspended its negotiation for renewal of the agreement with Hanban.[79] Two months later, the Canadian Association of University Teachers urged Canadian universities and colleges to end ties with the Confucius Institute.[80]

In June 2014, the American Association of University Professors issued a statement urging American universities to cease their collaboration with the Confucius Institute unless the universities can have unilateral control of the academia affairs, that the teachers in Confucius Institutes can have the same academic freedom enjoyed by other university faculty members, and that the agreements between universities and Confucius Institutes are available to the community.[81] The AAUP statement was widely noticed by US media and prompted extensive further debate in the US.[82][83][84][85]

Two months later, in August 2014, Xu Lin, Director-General of the Hanban and Chief Executive of the CIs worldwide, became embroiled in an incident in Braga, Portugal, when Xu ordered her staff to rip pages referring to Taiwanese academic institutions from the published program for the European Association for Chinese Studies conference in Braga, claiming the materials were "contrary to Chinese regulations".[86] When Roger Greatrex, president of the EACS, learned of this censorship, he ordered that 500 copies of the original program immediately be printed and distributed to participants.[87] He later wrote, "The seizure of the materials in such an unauthorized manner, after the conference had already begun, was extremely injudicious, and has promoted a negative view of the Confucius Institute Headquarters". The EACS letter of protest said this had been "the first occasion in the history of the EACS that its conference materials have been censored." It concluded, "Such interference in the internal organization of the international conference of an independent and democratically organized non-profitable academic organization is totally unacceptable."[88] The Wall Street Journal described Xu's attempted censorship as the "bullying approach to academic freedom".[89]

In September 2014, the University of Chicago closed their CI after pressure from faculty members, blaming Xu's comments that her threatening letter and phone call forced the university to continue hosting the institute.[65][90] The Business Spectator concludes that the Xu Lin's hardline behavior highlights one of the biggest problems for Beijing's charm offensive. "It still relies on officials like Xu, who still think and act like party ideologues who like to assert their authority and bully people into submission."[91] Less than a week later, Pennsylvania State University also cut ties with the Confucius Institute after coming to the conclusion that "its objectives were not in line with the Institute's".[92]

In December 2014, Stockholm University, the first university in Europe to host a Confucius Institute, announced it was terminating the program. Press coverage of the Braga incident in the Swedish press was said to have influenced the decision. "Generally it is questionable to have, within the framework of the university, institutes that are financed by another country," said the university's chancellor.[93]

In the same month, the United States House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations held a hearing entitled "Is Academic Freedom Threatened by China's Influence on U.S. Universities?".[94] Chairman Chris Smith said, "U.S. colleges and universities should not be outsourcing academic control, faculty and student oversight or curriculum to a foreign government", and called for a GAO study into agreements between American universities and China.[95] On 5 December 2014, PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying denied the House testimony and said "We have assisted with supplying teachers and textbooks at the request of the U.S. side but have never interfered with academic freedom."[96]

Controversy continued in 2018 as U.S. Congress members from Texas wrote a letter to four universities in that state urging them to close their Confucius Institutes. Texas A&M did so shortly after receiving the letter.[97] Throughout 2018 and 2019, all of the institutes in Florida were closed: the University of West Florida,[98] the University of North Florida,[99] the University of South Florida,[100] and Miami Dade College.[101]

A U.S. law passed in 2019 that prohibits universities hosting Confucius Institutes from receiving funding for Chinese language studies from the Department of Defense led to more closures of Confucius Institutes. Unable to obtain a waiver from the Department of Defense, Indiana University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Rhode Island, San Francisco State University, the University of Oregon, Western Kentucky University, Arizona State University, the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and San Diego State University closed their the programs in 2019.[102][103][104][105] In 2020, the University of Maryland also announced the closure of its Confucius Institute, the oldest one in the U.S.[106]

On 19 February 2019, Leiden University in The Netherlands promised to end its agreement with Confucius Institute in August 2019.[107]

In 2020, Sweden ended agreements with all Confucius Institutes in the country.[108][109] Management consultant Ross Feingold said the closure of the Confucius Institutes was the result of Sweden taking a much tougher view of China, as a result of Swedish national Gui Minhai being imprisoned for 10 years, and also comments by China's ambassador to Sweden, Gui Congyou, who threatened Sweden during an interview with broadcaster Swedish PEN in November 2019 saying that “We treat our friends with fine wine, but for our enemies we got shotguns.” over the decision to award Gui Minhai with the Tucholsky Prize, the ambassador later clarifed saying that China would impose trade restrictions on Sweden for this award.[110][111][112] The embassy has systematically worked to influence the reporting on China by Swedish journalists.[113]

See also

References
  1. U.S. Government Accountability Office (27 February 2019). "China: Agreements Establishing Confucius Institutes at U.S. Universities Are Similar, but Institute Operations Vary". Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  2. Penn, Brierley (15 April 2014). "China Business:A broader education". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 22 April 2014. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
  3. Mattis, Peter (2 August 2012). "Reexamining the Confucian Institutes". The Diplomat. Archived from the original on 22 April 2014. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
  4. A message from Confucius; New ways of projecting soft power Archived 9 March 2011 at the Wayback Machine, The Economist, 22 October 2009.
  5. "About Confucius Institute | The Confucius Institute". as.tufts.edu. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  6. "Introduction to the Confucius Institutes". Archived from the original on 7 July 2011. Retrieved 2 July 2011.
  7. Jianguo Chen; Chuang Wang; Jinfa Cai (2010). Teaching and learning Chinese: issues and perspectives. IAP. pp. xix. ISBN 9781617350641.
  8. Justin Norrie (2011), Confucius says school's in, but don't mention democracy Archived 4 June 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 February 2011.
  9. Sahlins, Marshall (29 October 2013). "China U." The Nation. Archived from the original on 26 June 2015. Retrieved 11 April 2014.
  10. "FAQ: When was CIM established?". Archived from the original on 16 July 2019. Retrieved 28 May 2018.
  11. Simon, Tay (2010). Asia Alone: The Dangerous Post-Crisis Divide from America. John Wiley and Sons. p. 42. ISBN 9780470826201.
  12. "Signing of Waseda University Confucius Institute Agreement Established as the first Research Confucius Institute in collaboration with Peking University". Waseda University. Archived from the original on 28 March 2012. Retrieved 11 July 2011.
  13. "HanBan-Confucius Institute/ClassRoom-About Confucius Institute/ClassRoom". english.hanban.org. Archived from the original on 16 September 2019. Retrieved 1 October 2019.
  14. "Confucius Institutes Worldwide". UCLA Confucious Institute. Archived from the original on 12 August 2014. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  15. "Confucius Institutes Around the Globe | Confucius Institute | Nebraska". Archived from the original on 7 September 2008. Retrieved 3 July 2011.
  16. China to host second Confucius Institute Conference Archived 9 December 2007 at the Wayback Machine, Xinhua, 6 December 2007.
  17. Confucius Institute: promoting language, culture and friendliness Archived 21 October 2012 at the Wayback Machine, Xinhua, 2 October 2006.
  18. Starr (2009), p. 68.
  19. Melvin, Sheila (29 August 2007). "Yu Dan and China's Return to Confucius". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 8 September 2014. Retrieved 2 July 2011.
  20. "China's Confucius Institutes Rectification of statues". The Economist. 20 January 2011. Archived from the original on 26 January 2011. Retrieved 2 July 2011.
  21. Starr (2009), p. 69.
  22. Zhou Wenting, Trademark infringement continues despite crackdown Archived 24 October 2012 at the Wayback Machine, China Daily 29 July 2011.
  23. World should watch for Confucius Archived 2 June 2015 at the Wayback Machine, China Post, 1 October 2014
  24. Kerry Brown, The case for eliminating Confucius from China's Confucius Institutes Archived 24 August 2014 at the Wayback Machine, South China Morning Post, 2 June 2014.
  25. "About Us". Confucius Institute. Archived from the original on 11 August 2011. Retrieved 3 July 2011.
  26. Linda Tsung; Ken Cruickshank (2011). Teaching and Learning Chinese in Global Contexts. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 151. ISBN 9781441100399.
  27. Peter Schmidt (2010b), At U.S. Colleges, Chinese-Financed Centers Prompt Worries About Academic Freedom Archived 16 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 17 September 2010.
  28. Jae Park(2013),Cultural artifact, ideology export or soft power? Confucius Institute in Peru, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 23(1), 1–16.
  29. Fabrice De Pierrebourg and Michel Juneau-Katsuya, Nest of Spies: The Startling Truth About Foreign Agents at Work Within Canada's Borders, HarperCollins Canada, 2009. ISBN 1554684498. pp 160 – 162
  30. Janet Steffenhagen, 'Has BCIT sold out to Chinese propaganda?' Archived 22 August 2012 at the Wayback Machine, The Vancouver Sun, 2 April 2008.
  31. French, Howard W. (11 January 2006). "Another Chinese Export is All the Rage: China's Language". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 29 April 2012. Retrieved 3 July 2011.
  32. "China's Confucius Institute: An Inquiry by the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, February 2019" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 October 2019. Retrieved 10 November 2019.
  33. The Economist, China’s Confucius Institutes: Rectification of statues Archived 19 June 2017 at the Wayback Machine, "Asia Banyan", 20 January 2011.
  34. Peng Ming-min 彭明敏 (2011), China picks pockets of academics worldwide Archived 3 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Taipei Times Tue, 31 May 2011, p. 8.
  35. Golden (2011).
  36. Brady, Anne-Marie (2011). China's Thought Management. London & New York: Routledge. p. 81. ISBN 978-0415616737.
  37. James F. Paradise (2009), China and International Harmony: The Role of Confucius Institutes in Bolstering Beijing's Soft Power Archived 21 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Asian Survey 49.4: 648–649.
  38. Sun Shangwu; Zhao Huanxin; Tang Yue (13 September 2013). "Hanban offers a wider choice". China Daily. Archived from the original on 20 September 2013. Retrieved 21 April 2014. ...Hanban, the nonprofit agency that administers Confucius Institutes worldwide.
  39. "Steven Knapp Named to Council of the Confucius Institute Headquarters". 3 June 2013. Archived from the original on 22 April 2014. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
  40. "Constitution and By-Laws of the Confucius Institutes". Hanban. Archived from the original on 22 April 2014. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
  41. "VP calls for development of Confucius Institute". Xinhua News Agency. 7 December 2013. Archived from the original on 22 April 2014. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
  42. Bruce Acker (22 December 2016). "UBCI named Confucius Institute of the Year". Archived from the original on 18 November 2017. Retrieved 17 November 2017.
  43. "COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE CONFUCIUS INSTITUTE HEADQUARTERS IN 2011". Archived from the original on 2 June 2015. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
  44. "About Us: Leadership". Hanban. Archived from the original on 29 September 2018. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
  45. "Confucius Institute Headquarters". Hanban. Archived from the original on 4 May 2014. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
  46. "A message from Confucius: New ways of projecting soft power". The Economist. 22 October 2009. Archived from the original on 9 March 2011. Retrieved 3 July 2011.
  47. "Regulations for the Administration of Confucius Institute Headquarters Funds". Hanban-News. Archived from the original on 14 March 2012. Retrieved 3 July 2011.
  48. Schimdt (2010b).
  49. "Confucius Institute at Tallinn University". Tallinn University. Archived from the original on 29 September 2011. Retrieved 3 July 2011.
  50. "Board of Directors". University of Buffalo College of Arts and Sciences. Archived from the original on 26 March 2012. Retrieved 3 July 2011."Governing and Advisory Boards". Regents of the University of Minnesota. Archived from the original on 26 March 2012. Retrieved 3 July 2011."Our Board". Confucius Institute at the University of New South Whales. Retrieved 3 July 2011.
  51. Hanban, ‘Overseas Volunteer Chinese Teacher Program’ Archived 22 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 16 September 2011.
  52. Macleans, Confucius Institutes break human rights rules:Profs working in Canada 'must have no record of Falun Gong'" Archived 1 April 2012 at the Wayback Machine, 10 August 2011.
  53. Matthew Robertson, US Universities, Confucius Institutes Import Discrimination”, The Epoch Times, 24 Aug 2011.
  54. McMaster closing Confucius Institute over hiring issues Archived 16 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Globe and Mail, 7 February 2013.
  55. Power, John. "University of Queensland faces heat for naming Chinese diplomat Xu Jie as faculty member". www.scmp.com. South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 30 July 2019. Retrieved 26 July 2019.
  56. Starr, DON (2009). "Chinese Language Education in Europe: The Confucius Institutes". European Journal of Education. 44: 65–82. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3435.2008.01371.x.
  57. Geoff Maslen (2007), Warning – be wary of Confucius institutes Archived 4 October 2011 at the Wayback Machine University World News, 2 December 2007.
  58. Profs worry China preparing to spy on students Archived 12 December 2011 at the Wayback Machine, Maclean's, 27 April 2011.
  59. Starr (2009), p. 6.
  60. "i Kina är tio miljoner barn utan en ordentlig skola" Riksdagens snabbprotokoll 2007/08:46 (in Swedish) Archived 13 August 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  61. Peter Schmidt (2010a), U. of Chicago's Plans for Milton Friedman Institute Stir Outrage on the Faculty Archived 3 July 2010 at the Wayback Machine, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 1 June 2010.
  62. Japanese university apologizes for calling Confucius Institute spy agency Archived 1 June 2013 at the Wayback Machine, People's Daily, 12 June 2010.
  63. James Bradshaw and Colin Freeze, McMaster closing Confucius Institute over hiring issues Archived 16 November 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Globe and Mail, 7 February 2013.
  64. Caroline Alphonso and Karen Howlett, Toronto school board seeks end to China deal Archived 4 March 2016 at the Wayback Machine, The Globe and Mail, 17 July 2014.
  65. Chicago to Close Confucius Institute Archived 17 August 2019 at the Wayback Machine, Inside Higher Ed, 26 September 2014
  66. Confucius Institute update Archived 24 October 2014 at the Wayback Machine, Penn State College of Liberal Arts, 1 October 2014.
  67. Toronto schools reject tie-up with China’s Confucius Institute Archived 14 December 2014 at the Wayback Machine, South China Morning Post, 30 October 2014.
  68. German University Abandons Plans for Confucius Institute Archived 22 December 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Inside Higher Ed, 8 June 2015.
  69. Worldwide campaign launched against Confucius Institutes Archived 22 December 2015 at the Wayback Machine, The Sunday Herald, 24 April 2015.
  70. Tzu-ti, Huang. "Belgian university to shut down Confucius Institute". www.taiwannews.com.tw. Taiwan News. Archived from the original on 12 December 2019. Retrieved 12 December 2019.
  71. Cohen, Hagar. "Australian universities the latest battleground in Chinese soft power offensive". ABC Australia. Archived from the original on 14 October 2016. Retrieved 13 October 2016.
  72. 'Has BCIT sold out to Chinese propaganda?' Archived 22 August 2012 at the Wayback Machine, The Vancouver Sun, 2 April 2008.
  73. China's Confucius Institutes: Rectification of Statues Archived 20 December 2011 at the Wayback Machine, The Economist, 20 January 2011.
  74. Guttenplan, D. D. (4 March 2012). "Critics Worry About Influence of Chinese Institutes on U.S. Campuses". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 March 2017. Retrieved 21 February 2017.
  75. Ulara Nakagawa. Confucius Controversy Archived 26 April 2011 at the Wayback Machine, The Diplomat.
  76. D. D. Guttenplan (2012), Critics Worry About Influence of Chinese Institutes on U.S. Campuses Archived 30 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Times, 4 March 2012.
  77. "China U: Confucius Institutes censor political discussions and restrain the free exchange of ideas. Why, then, do American universities sponsor them? Archived 26 June 2015 at the Wayback Machine" By Marshall Sahlins. The Nation, 18 November 2013
  78. Rejecting Confucius Funding Archived 2 July 2014 at the Wayback Machine Inside Higher Ed, 29 April 2014. By Elizabeth Redden
  79. "Statement on the Confucius Institute at the University of Chicago". UChicago News. University of Chicago. 25 September 2014. Archived from the original on 29 September 2014. Retrieved 25 September 2014.
  80. Universities and colleges urged to end ties with Confucius Institutes Archived 20 August 2014 at the Wayback Machine" Canadian Association of University Teachers, 17 December 2013
  81. "Our Partnerships with Foreign Governments: The Case of Confucius Institutes". American Association of University Professors. June 2014. Archived from the original on 22 June 2014. Retrieved 21 June 2014.
  82. US professors urge Western universities to end ties to China's Confucius Institutes Archived 20 May 2018 at the Wayback Machine By Peter Foster, Washington. The Telegraph (London), 18 June 2014.
  83. AAUP Rebukes Colleges for Chinese Institutes, and Censures Northeastern Ill Archived 30 June 2014 at the Wayback Machine Peter Schmidt, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 15 June 2014
  84. US Professors Troubled by Confucius Institutes Archived 29 June 2014 at Archive.today Carolyn Thompson. 24 June 2014.
  85. The price of Confucius Institutes Archived 17 July 2017 at the Wayback Machine Washington Post, Editorial Board 21 June 2014
  86. China's Soft-Power Fail Archived 11 October 2014 at the Wayback Machine, Bloomberg View, 7 October 2014.
  87. 20th Biennial Conference EACS Program Archived 10 August 2014 at the Wayback Machine, original uncensored version.
  88. Roger Greatrex, Letter of Protest at Interference in EACS Conference in Portugal, July 2014 Archived August 9, 2014, at the Wayback Machine, European Association for Chinese Studies, 1 August 2014.
  89. Beijing's Propaganda Lessons: Confucius Institute officials are agents of Chinese censorship Archived 25 April 2017 at the Wayback Machine, The Wall Street Journal, 7 August 2014.
  90. Redden, Elizabeth. "Chicago to Close Confucius Institute". Inside Higher Ed. Archived from the original on 17 August 2019. Retrieved 28 September 2014.
  91. Hard times for China's soft power Archived 2 October 2014 at the Wayback Machine, Business Spectator, 29 September 2014.
  92. Belkin, Douglas (1 October 2014). "Penn State Latest School to Drop China's Confucius Institute". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 31 December 2014. Retrieved 3 October 2014.
  93. "Stockholm University terminating its Confucius Institute". Archived from the original on 2 January 2015. Retrieved 2 January 2015.
  94. Subcommittee Hearing: Is Academic Freedom Threatened by China's Influence on U.S. Universities? Archived 15 December 2014 at the Wayback Machine, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 4 December 2014.
  95. China's influence threatens American universities, experts say Archived 4 January 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Los Angeles Times, 4 December 2014.
  96. China Says It’s 'Never Interfered With U.S. Academic Freedom' Archived 1 December 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Chinarealtime, The Wall Street Journal, 5 December 2014.
  97. Elizabeth Redden (9 April 2018). "Closing a Confucius Institute, at Congressmen's Request". Archived from the original on 10 April 2018. Retrieved 9 April 2018.
  98. "More Scrutiny for Confucius Institutes; One to Close | Inside Higher Ed". www.insidehighered.com. Archived from the original on 18 October 2019. Retrieved 20 January 2020.
  99. Redden, Elizabeth (16 August 2018). "North Florida Will Close Confucius Institute". Inside Higher Ed. Archived from the original on 17 December 2019. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
  100. "Colleges move to close Chinese government-funded Confucius Institutes amid increasing scrutiny". www.insidehighered.com. Archived from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 20 January 2020.
  101. Andrew Atterbury. "Miami Dade College is shutting down its Confucius Institute". Politico PRO. Retrieved 20 January 2020.
  102. "3 More Universities Close Confucius Institutes | Inside Higher Ed". www.insidehighered.com. Archived from the original on 17 December 2019. Retrieved 20 January 2020.
  103. Fischer, Karin (28 August 2019). "Another Confucius Institute Closes". The Chronicle of Higher Education. ISSN 0009-5982. Archived from the original on 4 September 2019. Retrieved 20 January 2020.
  104. wcole@staradvertiser.com, By William Cole; July 29, 2019 (29 July 2019). "University of Hawaii's Confucius Institute closes as FBI raises alarm". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. Archived from the original on 29 January 2020. Retrieved 20 January 2020.CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  105. "U.S. colleges face tough choice: Take money from China and lose federal funding". NBC News. Archived from the original on 6 November 2019. Retrieved 20 January 2020.
  106. "Following Federal Pressure, UMD Will Close A Program That Had Chinese Government Support". WAMU. Archived from the original on 21 January 2020. Retrieved 20 January 2020.
  107. "Leiden University to end agreement with Confucius Institute". 19 February 2019.
  108. Moody, Oliver (21 April 2020). "Swedes axe China-backed Confucius school scheme as relations sour". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Archived from the original on 22 April 2020. Retrieved 22 April 2020.
  109. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 1 May 2020. Retrieved 30 April 2020.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  110. Olsson, Jojje. "China Tries to Put Sweden on Ice". thediplomat.com. The Diplomat. Archived from the original on 31 December 2019. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
  111. Johan Ahlander, and Cate Cadell, Simon Johnson. "China, Sweden escalate war of words over support for detained bookseller". www.reuters.com. Reuters. Archived from the original on 1 January 2020. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
  112. "Sweden honors detained political writer Gui Minhai despite Chinese threats". www.japantimes.co.jp. Japan Times. Archived from the original on 16 November 2019. Retrieved 1 January 2020.
  113. "China's large-scale media push: Attempts to influence Swedish media". www.svt.se. SVT. Archived from the original on 19 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.

Further reading
Library resources about
Confucius Institute
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.