Chinese students at UK universities asked to monitor classmates, report on talks critical of China: report
The report, based on a survey of academics in China studies, also found that some university staff had been warned by Chinese officials not to speak about certain topics in class.
The Chinese embassy in London rejected the findings, telling the BBC the report was 'groundless and absurd'. A spokesperson said China respects freedom of speech in the UK and does not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries.
The findings come soon after a new law came into effect in the UK, requiring universities to actively promote academic freedom and free speech, even when they have partnerships with foreign governments.
The Office for Students (OfS), the higher education regulator, said freedom of speech and academic freedom are 'fundamental' to universities. OfS chief executive Susan Lapworth has said Confucius Institutes—cultural centres funded by the Chinese government and hosted at UK universities—should be examined under the new law due to concerns about foreign influence.
Some universities may hesitate to raise concerns about interference because of the high number of Chinese students and the fees they pay, the UKCT said.
According to the report, some students from China told lecturers they had been asked by officials to observe and report on their peers. Other students said they felt uncomfortable discussing topics considered sensitive by the Chinese government, and were reluctant to pursue further study in those areas.
Topics seen as sensitive include China's policies in Xinjiang, the origins of Covid-19, and the country's growing tech industry.
Some academics also said they had been harassed or intimidated. The report said some researchers were denied visas to China, and others said their families in China were pressured because of their work in the UK. There were also reports of intimidation by visiting Chinese scholars and by staff linked to Confucius Institutes.
The OfS said it already has powers to ensure universities protect free speech, including from foreign influence. These powers will be expanded to include a new complaints system where staff and visiting speakers can raise concerns directly with the regulator.
Universities that fail to protect academic freedom could face fines, with one already being fined £585,000 earlier this year.
Universities UK, a group representing 141 institutions, said: 'Any threats to the freedom of our staff or students are taken very seriously. We work closely with the government to prevent this.'
A government spokesperson said, 'Anyone working or studying at our universities should know their rights to personal and academic freedom are protected when they are on British soil.'
Skills Minister Jacqui Smith added, 'Academic freedom is non-negotiable in our universities. Any attempt by a foreign state to intimidate or harass people in the UK will not be tolerated.'
She said the new law makes universities' responsibilities clear, and that institutions failing to act 'will face the consequences'.
(With inputs from BBC)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
14 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
'No business questioning Rahul's Indianness': How Congress defended Gandhi on SC rap
Congress leaders from across the country have raised objections to the Supreme Court's comments on Rahul Gandhi over his comments on the Indian Army and the Chinese incursions. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi greets party leaders as his sister and fellow MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra looks on, at a conclave in Delhi.(PTI File) Member parties of the INDIA bloc 'agreed that the sitting judge has made an extraordinary observation which is unwarranted on the democratic rights of political parties', Congress spokesperson Supriya Shrinate posted on X on Tuesday morning. This came just as Priyanka Gandhi, Congress MP and Rahul's sister, remarked that judged cannot decide who a true Indian is. This was in reference to the SC bench's comment that 'a true India would never say this', while hearing a defamation case against Rahul Gandhi. The SC did stay the proceedings at the trial court stage, and agreed to hear some points raised by Rahul Gandhi's lawyer. But the comments made by the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih did not go down well with the opposition. Justice Datta said, 'How do you get to know that 2000 square kilometres of Indian territory was occupied by China? What is the credible material? If you are a true indian, you would not say this. When there is a conflict across borders... can you say all this?' Congress leader Jairam Ramesh reacted soon after, saying that 'every patriotic Indian has sought answers' on China since the 2020 Galwan incident. He accused the Narendra Modi government of having a "policy of DDLJ' — a reference to a Shah Rukh Khan romcom but here meaning 'deny, distract, lie, and justify'. The BJP took the opportunity to attack Rahul Gandhi, but Jairam Ramesh cited news reports and some officials' submissions about several square kilometres of territory having come under Chinese control. He called it 'the biggest territorial setback India has faced since 1962'. The top court had told Rahul Gandhi, "How do you get to know that 2,000 sq km of Indian territory has been occupied by Chinese? Were you there? Do you have any credible material?" Congress general secretary Randeep Surjewala reacted to this on X. The Chinese occupation of Indian territory is a 'reality' that 'no patriotic Indian' should wish away, he said. "Nationalism mandates that government must be questioned," he added, 'If this is 'contempt', I, an Indian Citizen, must commit it 'My Lord',' 'If you read social media & BJP trolls…' Rahul Gandhi's lawyer Abhishek Singhvi, who is a senior Congress leader, pointed out that the court was favourable to him overall. He said the court formed 'prima facie opinion in favour of Rahul Gandhi' and stayed the proceedings in the defamation case. "If you read social media & BJP trolls or Mr Malviya, it sounds like RG lost today!" Amit Malviya, the BJP IT cell chief, had called Rahul Gandhi 'a certified anti-national' based on the SC's observations. Singhvi said, 'These people quote and gloat on oral observations of SC," adding that the court makes such observations 'to elicit responses from each side in every case'. Former Rajasthan CM Ashok Gehlot also argued on X that what Rahul Gandhi said about the intrusion and skirmishes in which 20 soldiers lost their lives was already in the public domain. He recalled that Rahul's father Rajiv Gandhi and grandmother Indira Gandhi showed 'the ultimate form of patriotism' by 'sacrificing one's life for the nation'. "Rahul Gandhi undertook a 4,000-kilometre journey across the country (Bharat Jodo Yatra) to highlight its issues. Who could be a greater patriot than him?" he said. 'Does this prohibit us?' Another Congress MP, Karti Chidambaram from Tamil Nadu, underlined that observations by court have 'really no binding dictate over anybody'. 'I'm not too sure how to interpret this observation. Does it prohibit us from bringing attention to the nation's issues? This is something which we need to ponder about,' he added. Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, Congress leader from West Bengal, said the BJP should introspect before commenting on Rahul Gandhi. Odisha Congress president Bhakta Charan Das said, 'Justice Dipankar Datta had no business to question Rahul Gandhi's 'Indianness' for criticising the Modi government's failure on Chinese aggression.' (With inputs by ANI and PTI)
Indian Express
14 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Judges can't decide who is a true Indian': Congress defends Rahul Gandhi after SC rap
Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra defended her brother Rahul Gandhi after the Supreme Court's remarks on the Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition. After the apex court rapped Rahul over his remarks on the Army, Priyanka said that it does not fall within the purview of the judges of the top court to decide who is a true Indian. Priyanka Gandhi said that her brother has the highest respect for the Army, and would never say anything against it. The Wayanad MP further said that as Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi has the right to question the government. The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the proceedings against Gandhi before a Lucknow court over his remarks about the Army during his December 2022 Bharat Jodo Yatra. The top court, however, censured the Congress leader, saying if he is a true Indian, he would not say such a thing. While speaking to reporters at the Parliament House, Priyanka Gandhi said, 'With due respect to the honourable judges of the Supreme Court, they do not decide who is a true Indian. It is the job of the opposition leader, it is his duty to ask questions and to challenge the government.' 'My brother would never say anything against the Army. He holds the Army in the highest respect. So it is a misinterpretation (of his remarks),' she said. The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up Rahul Gandhi over his remarks on the Indian Army after a clash with the Chinese army in Arunachal Pradesh. 'How do you get to know that 2,000 sq km of Indian territory has been occupied by Chinese? Were you there? Do you have any credible material?' the apex court told Rahul Gandhi. The top court says, 'If you are a true Indian, you would not say all these things.'
NDTV
14 minutes ago
- NDTV
Opinion: Moving Nuclear Submarines Isn't Something To Announce On Social Media
Over the last week, two political leaders have exchanged barbs underlining the powerful nuclear arsenals of their respective nations. It was not just a pointless demonstration of bravado - it also showed that careless words and vague military threats can move the world closer to a disastrous conflict. The first to lash out was Dimitry Medvedev, a former president and prime minister of Russia, who now serves as deputy chair of President Vladimir Putin's security council. In a social media post on July 28, he said a US ultimatum for Moscow to come to the negotiating table over Ukraine was a "threat and a step towards war." Later, he alluded to Russia's "dead hand" nuclear launch system, which automatically fires a nuclear strike if the nation is attacked with such weapons. President Donald Trump responded to Medvedev's comments by saying he had ordered two nuclear submarines "to be positioned in the appropriate regions." He concluded by saying, correctly, that "words are very important and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances." (On Monday, a Kremlin spokesman warned against "nuclear rhetoric.") Between them, the US and Russia have more than 10,000 nuclear weapons. How dangerous is this war of words between the Kremlin and the White House? And what is the significance of Trump claiming to have moved nuclear submarines to new stations? I'm not a submariner - or a "bubblehead," as they are known (more-or-less affectionately) in the Navy. But I've commanded them in combat as a commodore and a rear admiral, directed the launch of their conventional Tomahawk missiles at terrorist targets in Africa and Asia, and sailed in them from time to time. I like to say these formidable warships are the apex predators of the ocean. And their locations are always kept secret. As an anti-submarine-warfare officer for three years on a destroyer early in my career, I hunted both Soviet and Chinese subs and, in exercises, American boats. ("Boats" is the colloquial term for submarines, whereas surface combatants are "ships.") We like to think of our destroyers as the greyhounds of the sea, and lethal to submarines; but truth be told, more often than not we ended up the target rather than the hunter in those drills against US boats. The US operates three types of nuclear-powered submarines, each posing a different level of threat to Russia. It is unclear which of the three types Trump claimed to have moved around; all US nuclear subs are capable of clandestine operations throughout the world's oceans. First, and by far the deadliest, are huge ballistic-missile boats: Ohio class SSBNs, which displace 20,000 tons when fully submerged. The Navy has 14 of these killer whales, each capable of carrying 24 Trident II nuclear-tipped missiles with ranges exceeding 4,000 miles. The missiles are in vertical tubes at the center of the boat, and the crew of 150 officers and enlisted men and women call that part of the warship "Sherwood Forest" - a stand of lethal tree trunks. While more than half the Ohio class are usually on patrol, it seems unlikely that Trump would have ordered changes to their movements given the extraordinary range of their missiles. The second big group of nuclear-powered submarines is the attack boats, or SSNs. The US currently operates three classes - Los Angeles, Seawolf and Virginia - totaling just over 50 warships. These are multi-mission platforms: they can hunt enemy submarines; launch long-range Tomahawk missiles at land targets with pinpoint accuracy; gather intelligence covertly; and sink enemy military and civilian surface ships. The three classes vary in size from 7,000 to 9,000 tons and their weapons and sensors vary - but all are deadly and very difficult to find through acoustic surveillance. I was glad to have two of them loosely assigned to my strike group in the early 2000s. Finally, four Ohio-class behemoths have been converted to carry more than 150 Tomahawk land-attack missiles in the tubes that formerly held ballistic missiles. These are favored by combatant commanders because of the big load of missiles, which constitute a strike group's main battery. Since the Tomahawk's range is about 1,500 miles, these would probably be the boats Trump moved, presumably closer to Russia. He may have designated the commander of US European Command, my old position, as the operational commander. These missiles could hold at risk Russian command-and-control nodes, supply routes, and military targets. That said, I've met Medvedev, and he is not a serious player in Putin's universe despite his political resume. Trump should ignore his erratic commentary and focus on putting pressure directly on the Russian economy. For that, the best weapons are not "haze grey and underway," as we say of the subs. They are economic tools, especially secondary sanctions applied to Russian oil customers, and the confiscation of Russian funds frozen in Western banks. As tempting as it is to move nuclear submarines around, the means to bring Putin to the table aren't America's killers of the deep.
