MCLC: debate over Confucius Institutes (5,6)

[Denton, Kirk]

MCLC LIST
From: Kristin Stapleton <kstaple at buffalo.edu>
Subject: debate over Confucius Institutes (5)
***********************************************************

Dear all,

Professor Zito drew our attention to a claim by the China File editors
that they tried to find people at universities with CIs to join the forum
but were unsuccessful. I believe that statement supplies further evidence
to support Professor Hill's suggestion that they did not try very hard.
Several people at universities with CIs have made public statements
challenging some of the critiques of them. Professor Ed McCord at George
Washington University is one.  The Vice Provost for International
Education at my school (the University at Buffalo, SUNY), Dr. Stephen
Dunnett, is another.

Although I don't play any role at our CI at this point (but helped write
the proposal and served as director for the first three years), I will go
on the record to say that I think the CI initiative has played a valuable
role in raising interest in China, encouraging study of Mandarin, and
teaching Mandarin.  As Steve Levine suggested in his contribution to the
forum, the less wealthy parts of America found this the only way to create
Chinese programs. At our school, we already had a strong Chinese program,
but we wanted to be able to admit freshmen who had had the opportunity to
take the language in their K-12 studies in western New York. That's what
we focused on, and I think we have been quite successful. I can't think of
any way in which the CI has undermined our academic integrity up to this
point, and I believe that my colleagues and I will work to ensure that it
never does. Perry Link's warnings are helpful in this respect because they
identify some possible dangers for us to avoid (the faculty are generally
quite aware of these but we can use Perry's eloquent statements to educate
others who may be less so).

Academic integrity is always challenged by the influence of
special-interest money. That's why strong faculty governance and oversight
are so critical. The AAUP statement appropriately reminded us of that, as
it has done in other areas that perhaps pose more serious threats, such as
the often too-cozy relationship between pharmaceutical companies and
medical schools.

One may ask why I don't post this to China File. This forum somehow seems
friendlier and more open to conversation. I suppose I self-censor by
avoiding debates that seem set up, like Judge Judy, to get people to
wrangle to amuse the public.

Kristin Stapleton

======================================================

From: sean macdonald <smacdon2005 at gmail.com>
Subject: debate over Confucius Institutes (6)

Thanks for this post. I missed this statement too: "We have solicited
responses to our original question." But I clicked on both links in
this paragraph. The AAUP pdf file is not a question. The other link is
to a Globe and Mail article. I could not find the original question
the statement refers to. My apologies, my internet connection is
wonky.

Is this statement what is meant by the question?

Sean