Image courtesy of Wikipedia
The following is an opinion contribution and reflects the author’s views alone.
In October 2021, 198 Princeton professors signed a letter denouncing the Department of Justice’s China Initiative. Created during the Trump administration, the initiative was directed towards “identifying and prosecuting those engaged in trade secret theft, hacking, and economic espionage,” especially in academic settings.
The opposing letter claims that “collaboration with major international actors, including China, is critical to the health of American science and technology.”
Launched in the summer of 2014, the Princeton China Center, at Tsinghua University, “aims to support Princeton faculty, students and staff studying and conducting research in China.” According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s (ASPI) ‘Research for the China Defence Universities’ Tracker, “Tsinghua University is designated very high risk for its high level of defense research and alleged involvement in cyber attacks.”
The Australian Government Transparency portal describes ASPI as “the highest-ranked defense and national security think tank in Australia.” Independent, not-for-profit, and non-partisan, ASPI is dedicated to analyzing issues of defense and national security. It’s tracker is a “database that sorts institutions into categories of very high, high, medium or low risk…to capture the risk that relationships with these entities could be leveraged for military or security purposes.” The risk assessment categories are based upon each institution’s level of connection to and engagement with security and defense agencies. To illustrate, “East China Normal University (ECNU) is designated low risk for its limited involvement in defense research,” while the “Heilongjiang Institute of Technology (HLJIT) is designated medium risk for its growing involvement in defense research” (emphasis added).
The database has classified 92 institutions as very high risk, of which 52 are People’s Liberation Army (PLA) institutions, eight are security or intelligence institutions, and 12 are leading defense industry conglomerates. Only 20 of the 92 are civilian universities, and their high-risk designation is a result of them possessing one or more of the following components: top-secret security credentials; involvement in defense research related to cyber-attacks; defense laboratories; close links to China’s defense industry; links to China’s nuclear weapons program; high level of defense research; a focus on defense research; deep involvement in defense research; a close relationship with Chinese missile manufacturers; links to one or more espionage cases; a close relationship with Chinese weapons manufacturers; suspected links to cyber espionage; links to potential human rights abuses; inclusion on the US Government Entity List; a close relationship with China’s defense industry and military; or deep links to China’s arms industry.
Tsinghua is one of the 20, maintaining top secret-level Chinese security status as a result of highly-classified research it conducted for the Chinese military in 2007. The Chinese military also funds a significant proportion of the university’s research. “Tsinghua University will closely integrate the national strategy of military-civilian integration,” wrote You Zheng, Vice President of Tsinghua University.
Princeton University has received $4.6 million from yet another People’s Republic of China (PRC) institution, Peking University (PKU), “to fund research hubs for drug development and computer science,” according to the Washington Free Beacon. Princeton University has also established the ‘Peking-Princeton Postdoctoral Research Program’ (PPPP) with PKU. Like Tsinghua, PKU has also been accused of being closely connected to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
According to the ASPI, “Peking University (PKU) is designated high risk for its involvement in defense research and links to China’s nuclear weapons program.” It details how the university was a part of “classified defense research” in 2006 and signed an agreement with the Chinese Navy in 2013.
In 2019, Peking University’s charter was changed to remove all references to ‘freedom of thought.’ Look no further than Qiu Shuiping, Secretary of the Party Committee of Peking University, to see CCP’s authority over PKU. Shuiping was formerly the most senior security official in Beijing between 2013 and 2014. PKU’s entanglement with the CCP is further evidenced by the PKU–CAEP New Structure Center for Applied Physics and Technology. In the center’s own words (translated): “The purpose of the center is to work hard to carry out applied basic research oriented to the major needs of the country.”
Princeton’s connection to Peking and Tsinghua Universities does not end with the Princeton China Center and PPPP. Many professors currently employed by Princeton University have links to CCP-related research and institutions.
For instance, Yu Xie, the Bert G. Kerstetter ’66 University Professor of Sociology at Princeton, is a Visiting Professor at Peking University and has been published numerous times in the Journal of Peking University.
Vincent Poor, Michael Henry Strater University Professor of Electrical Engineering at Princeton, was appointed PKU Honorary Professor in 2017. In describing his visit to China in September 2017, PKU news said: “Professor Poor’s visit helps promote the construction and development of PKU information and communication engineering as well as the innovation and internalization of talent cultivation and scientific research.”
Weinan E, a professor in Princeton’s Math department, is also a Changjiang Visiting Professor at PKU.
These ties to CCP-linked institutions abound at Princeton and in numerous disciplines of interest to the Chinese military and communist party. Jia Yu, a visiting scholar for the Paul and Marcia Wythes Center on Contemporary China, is an assistant professor at Peking University. In addition, Bingli Jiao, a Visiting Research Collaborator in Electrical and Computer Engineering is a professor at PKU. These professors may not all be involved with some aspect of the CCP regime, but their collective ties certainly warrant further investigation.
Princeton is no stranger to institutions whose hallowed halls are infused with CCP influence. Of greater concern is that a significant number of Princeton professors consider the so-called collaboration overwhelmingly positive. As alluded to previously, in their open letter, almost 200 professors believe close interaction with Chinese universities is “critical to the health of American science and technology.” This view is blind to the very serious risks entwining the University with key CCP and PLA-affiliated research universities.
A report by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) explains that “even if this unclassified research has no direct application to national security, Chinese students and scholars acquire skills and knowledge they can later employ to meet the CCP’s expectation that civilian institutions support the country’s military modernization.” As an “R1” Research institution, Princeton receives “millions of taxpayer dollars to conduct classified U.S. government research.” The danger of compromising sensitive research is heightened by granting access to students and researchers from foreign institutions that firmly abide by military-civil fusion (MCF) in the PRC.
The MCF is “a national strategy aimed at acquiring the world’s cutting-edge technologies — including through theft — to achieve Chinese military dominance.” According to FDD, MCF “entails the two-way transfer of technology, resources, and information between military and civilian entities.” China’s Ministry of Education does not attempt to hide this reality. In fact, it boasts that it “promote[s] the two-way transfer and transformation of military-civilian scientific and technological achievements.” According to the Ministry, the duty of the university is to “increase the contribution to the local economy, society and national defense construction.” In China, universities are expected to “serve the country’s major strategic needs.” This means that all data that makes its way across university desks can easily end up in government hands.
This profound philosophical divergence from the role of academia in the West must be both acknowledged and reconciled by departments and universities whose faculty seek out or are sought after by CCP-run institutions. Whether those individuals participate for mercenary, financial, or naîvely idealistic reasons, the dangers for this country must be accounted for. Princeton cannot dodge its greater responsibility as we confront a totalitarian regime on the ascent. The reality, as distasteful as it is, must be called out. To be clear, I am not advocating for the suspension of all connections to China; the issue at hand is the relationship with distinctly CCP-controlled institutions.
The exalted standard-bearers of higher learning and Western Civilization must also demonstrate higher wisdom. Instead, defaulting to easy slogans of upholding “American values of openness and inclusion,” as “essential” to the “success” of academic research in the U.S. whitewashes a deceit. We have more to lose in this contest than Princeton is willing to admit.
Copyright © 2024 The Princeton Tory. All rights reserved.