Earlier this month, Xia Yeliang, an economist at Peking University who is known for his pro-democratic views was fired. Xia was one of the many intellectuals to sign Charter 08, a petition released in 2008 calling for democratic reform in China. Unsurprisingly, the document’s signers are not exactly held in high regard by the Chinese government. Lu Xiaobo, one of the charter’s authors — and the winner of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize — is currently incarcerated as a political prisoner.
Many in the academic community in the West viewed Xia’s dismissal as gross violation of the practice of academic freedom. The University has been criticized for its lack of a strong response regarding the situation, considering that we have an academic partnership with Peking University. For an institution that values academic freedom, it is somewhat hypocritical to be in partnership with an institution that clearly does not hold academic freedom in the same regard. From the articles that I have seen, this reaction appears to be in the majority. However, I must disagree because the situation is much too complex for it to simply boil down to the universal nature of academic freedom. The idea of academic freedom is a concept that naturally developed in the West; therefore, we need to be careful in applying it to other countries. As a result, I think the University took the right course of action.
In the West, the ability for intellectuals and scholars to express their views on any subject without any reservation is a cornerstone of our society. In the United States, freedom of expression and intellectual freedom traces its origin to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers in turn drew inspiration from Enlightenment thinkers. There is a history and legacy of intellectual freedom in the West to the point where academic freedom in ingrained in our thinking. I, myself, am a product of that society, and hold academic freedom in high regard. At the same time, though, we must not forget that other countries may not necessarily have had the same historical trajectory.
Historically, Chinese imperial society and life was shaped by Confucianism. While there was a vibrant intellectual life in imperial China, most scholars viewed the world within the framework of Confucianism. Because the examination system (to obtain official positions) tested people’s understanding of Confucianism, most learned individuals had a deep understanding of Confucianism and were thus ingrained in those ideas. Furthermore, according to Confucian tradition, scholars are meant to help the state run smoothly, therefore, many of the ideas that scholars discussed were ones that the emperor would have favored. Keeping in mind the simplistic discussion of imperial China, the historical traditions in China does illustrate there was a culture of harmony, functioning within a very clear framework. There really did not exist an idea of intellectual freedom that would question the existing view of the world. In 1949 when the Communist party took over, any anti-Communist view would be perceived as revisionist and treasonous.
Yet, despite the emphasis on unity and harmony, from the Deng Xiaoping era (1978 to 1980s) there was liberalization within the government apparatus that allowed for different ideas to flourish. There was still a limit to what could be said, but the contrast to the oppression during the Mao era is quite sharp. Now, people can discuss politics in private, and literature can advocate democracy as long as the Chinese Communist Party doesn’t perceive it as a threat.
In this context, it is impractical for Western institutions to expect China will allow for the level of academic freedom that exists in the West — there is very little historical basis for it. Moreover, to expect that Peking University, simply because it is partnered with an American institution, will allow for full academic freedom is not practical. There is still a government to answer to at the end of the day. Peking University functions in a different country with its own context and its own set of constraints. In order for there to be the academic freedom that Westerners envision, there has to be change within the CCP. Additionally, the Chinese government, thus far, has more or less followed its own trajectory, and has done what it considers to be right and appropriate for China (regardless of international sentiment), so for the CCP to suddenly bow to the whims of Western nations is not likely to happen soon.
As a product of Western thinking, I hold academic freedom in high regard, and find it important for intellectual creativity. However, we as a society need to be careful not to impose Western ideas and expectations on other countries without first understanding the context of that country. The dismissal of Xia Yeliang is unfortunate and wrong. But I have to acknowledge the different conditions of Peking University. Therefore, I do not find fault with the University’s lack of definitive response. In a joint partnership, both universities have to work within the context and situation of each university. The University cannot necessarily expect Peking to adhere to the same standards and rules by which it abides.
Fariha Kabir is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. Her columns run Wednesdays.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Sometimes it’s okay to fake a smile
By Alexandra Holmes | 2 hours agoI surrounded myself with people who were so enthusiastic about the University and its potential, that after a while, it was impossible not to feel their passion and their convictions rub off on me.
PARTING SHOT: Girl, what did you expect?
By Cecy Juárez | YesterdayAdvocate for yourself unabashedly, even and especially when you feel like you don’t belong.
PARTING SHOT: Revisiting old comments
By Claire DiLorenzo | YesterdayIn retirement, I am also trying not to be hard on myself — I don’t have to hold onto all the mistakes that I made as an editor.
