On Oct. 19, the New York Post published an article discussing NYU Shanghai’s response to the recent Hong Kong protests. Based on quotes from a single faculty member, the article presented a damning picture of NYUSH, describing the university as “self-censoring, politically neutral” on Hong Kong. The Gazelle interviewed four NYUSH students and one faculty member about the New York Post article, self-censorship surrounding Hong Kong and academic freedom.

The diverse group interviewed was unanimous in its disdain for the New York Post’s reporting. As one student, who was broadly sympathetic to the article’s conclusions, put it, “the New York Post isn't necessarily the highest sort of journalism, so there is a lot that the article gets wrong.” From basic factual errors to the general tone of the article, they argued that the publication had done a disservice to its subject material.

“There [are] also a lot of things that are in the article, which make ... claims that [make it] seem like the person has never been to this school,” another student explained. “For example, [the article refers to a] sprawling campus ... we don't have a sprawling campus ... we live in [one] building.”

The article also quoted NYU New York professor Rebecca Karl, who claimed that she was “persona non grata” — an unacceptable or unwelcome person — at NYUSH because of her criticism of China and the university. However, multiple sources contradicted this view, claiming that Karl had, in fact, recently given a talk at NYUSH.

“We were very puzzled by that assertion, as Professor Karl was supposed to visit NYU Shanghai in 2015 and 2016, but cancelled,” claimed NYUSH Director of University Communications June Shih in a statement to The Gazelle. “Importantly, neither she nor the Post acknowledged that she spent a month-long fellowship at NYUSH in 2018, during which time she presented a lecture. It is pretty hard to square those facts with her claim that she was persona non grata."

One student was particularly frustrated by the article’s criticism of the university’s neutral stance on Hong Kong.

“Of course institutions are not going to be pro-Hong Kong or pro-China because it is an educational institution and ... it is not up to them to take sides,” argued the student. “Institutions in general are never going to talk about sides and politics because that's just simply not ... what they do.”

However, when it came to the article’s description of self-censorship at NYUSH, views were more varied. While most agreed that the anonymous faculty member’s assertion in the New York Post article — “most of us are on guard about what we say even when we talk about the weather” — was hyperbolic, several students corroborated a culture of self-censorship at the university.

“A lot of what [The New York Post says] about the self-censorship, I think, is very valid and is something that is noticeable at the school for anyone that takes the time to look for it,” one NYUSH student described to The Gazelle. "I think it's very easy for most students go about their day-to-day studies and not necessarily notice it, but as soon as you start pushing the boundaries a little bit, [it becomes] very, very clear that there's plenty of self-censorship on campus.”

While students did not cite any concrete examples of overt censorship by the university, they did mention incidents where their peers objected to the discussion of controversial issues. One student, for instance, cited the example of a class where a few students objected to address a video that documented the workings of Chinese detention camps in the region of Xinjiang.

Another student suggested that self-censorship was more prevalent in Shanghai than in other NYU Global Network location, explaining that in places they have studied away, “professors are really easily opinionated and ... want to be challenged with their own opinions. I don't know if I see that as much here, going to this school.”

Nonetheless, multiple individuals also expressed the view that there is nothing inherently different about self-censorship at NYUSH compared to other places.

“Self-censorship, at least in my opinion, occurs just about everywhere,” stated a faculty member at NYUSH to The Gazelle. “That is not just [at] NYU Shanghai. That's sort of about every institution and in almost every walk of life.”

Several members of the community were also eager to stress the inevitability of self-censorship.

“Self censorship is not a personal ... prerogative,” a student asserted. “It is more like ... I'm within this academic institution ... which falls under the laws of this country and do I want to risk like everything that comes with that?”

Another student was even more blunt and pithily stated, “More or less, [the article’s description of self-censorship] is true, but it just ... makes sense because [when] you are coming to China, you are coming to an authoritarian regime. You know [that] it's common sense to not express yourself like you'd do in the U.S. or any other Western country.”

The faculty member pushed back against the notion that individual discomfort with controversial political issues should be characterized as self-censorship. They argued that self-censorship is when someone does not express themselves because they are worried about their situation due to the state or another outside actor, which is different from not talking about certain topics because they feel personally uncomfortable to talk about.

Despite its portrayal of restricted speech at the university, the New York Post article did acknowledge that there was a panel discussion on the situation in Hong Kong. However, while the panel could have been an opportunity for the university to assuage concerns about censorship, multiple students expressed frustration with the event.

“The panel didn't address any of the political nature of what's going on in Hong Kong,” a student described to The Gazelle. “It was very focused on economic background and on housing prices ... People felt like it didn't really deliver the topic that it was supposed to be covering.”

After such student critiques of the original panel discussion, multiple events pertaining to the situation in Hong Kong have been held at NYUSH. For one student, the failed panel and its aftermath was welcome evidence of the university’s willingness to listen to its students.

“Apparently they did a follow up ... because students weren't happy with [the first one]. So that just goes to show ... that students have a voice here and, very much a prominent voice because they're the ones that are hosting these events and have been approved by NYUSH to host them,” the student added. “Maybe it is behind closed doors, maybe it's within the bounds of the university, but that's because we're an academic institution and we have to follow the rules of this country.”

At NYUSH, a satellite campus of a liberal university in China, questions of academic freedom constantly linger. In the light of the Hong Kong protests and the subsequent New York Post article, these questions have become unavoidable.

“Because of the context that we work in, we are particularly cognizant and particularly thoughtful whenever it comes to questions regarding academic freedom,” an NYUSH faculty member explained to The Gazelle. “And so, whenever you have articles like this, that may initially receive … disdain or even surprise with its inaccuracy. I think it's actually a useful thing to [ask]: what can we learn from this?”

For a wider discussion surrounding academic freedom, one needs a specific framework through which universities can be evaluated. When NYU Abu Dhabi faced similar questions in 2017, Associate Professor of Philosophy Matthew Silverstein pointed to the American Association of University Professors’ 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure. In essence, this definition regards academic freedom as a situation where professors have complete freedom in the classroom and in their research.

Within the contours of that narrow framework, most agreed that there is academic freedom at NYUSH with certain caveats.

“The easy answer for me is … yes, there is academic freedom,” asserted an NYUSH faculty member. “[But] I do think that self-censorship happens everywhere you go. And inherently, because of this, … there is no perfect answer. There is no perfect academic freedom anywhere.”

Despite broad agreement about NYUSH fitting the above conception of academic freedom, students also outlined some of the implicit restrictions they had observed on campus. One student claimed that professors are not able to share their personal opinions on sensitive issues.

“[Professors] would be able to talk about the Uighur camps, they would be able to talk about Hong Kong but they would only be allowed to talk about … the facts … they wouldn't be able to … take a position [that is] opinionated,” commented one student.

However, in their interview, the faculty member pushed back against such opinions, arguing that this is likely a matter of pedagogical preference rather than censorship by the university.

“Whenever you do operate in a new institution and in places that have commonly been regarded to lack academic freedom, … you start to ask yourselves questions about this, and so, one becomes more sensitive to the question of what I am allowed or not allowed to talk about,” shared the professor. “[But] it does not mean that … you necessarily go around, yelling at the top of your lungs about controversial issues in part because I think … that a good teacher balances taking on controversial topics with how students will respond to that and how they will learn from it. That could potentially alienate students and, in the teaching environment, go against what one's goal is, which is to get a conversation or dialogue, a discussion going.”

On Nov. 20, Vice Media published an article which claimed that a Chinese civic education course was secretly added, “at the behest of the Chinese government” to Chinese NYUSH students’ education. The article alleged that students were informed of the new course via WeChat — China’s most popular messaging app.

While the article claims that the decision to introduce the course was shrouded in secrecy, The Gazelle can confirm that all of its sources — none of whom are Chinese — were aware of the new course before the Vice article was published.

In a statement to The Gazelle, NYUSH Director of University Communications June Shih clarified that, “Chinese students were notified in two ways that they would have to take the civics course designed by [East China Normal University] in order to receive their Chinese diploma: by an official email [or] by an informal WeChat.”

Shih also explained the nature of the course.

“The most important concepts to understand are that this national requirement for young Chinese citizens is not a requirement for them to receive their NYU degree, that NYU is not involved in the design or delivery of the course, and [that the] presence of a national requirement on young Chinese citizens does not represent an intrusion on the independence of NYU’s academic decision-making,” she said.

According to Shih, the course — along with military service — is a requirement for students of any university to receive a diploma and certificate from the Chinese Ministry of Education.

Regardless of its many inaccuracies, both students and the professor interviewed by The Gazelle expressed that they were thankful for the conversation initiated by the New York Post article. The opinions of members of the NYUSH community call for continued introspection when it comes to academic freedom at NYUSH and beyond.