[a] For example, in America you can post on Facebook about MAGA or tweet about BLM and you will rarely if ever lose your job or doctorate candidacy.
Am I allowed to post cartoons about them? What about bears?
Are there a lot of those floating around?
In any case TFA deliberately made it hard for readers to form their own judgement.
Anyway, this jollybean poster apparently also doesn’t have a copy and posted in bad faith just to mislead people who didn’t actually read the article, or only read what the author intended to highlight. Really tried of this bad faith engagement.
I've never heard of such a thing. Could you give a specific example of these "lots of people"?
In other words, regardless of actually instances of discrimination, this framing looks chosen to try and create or sustain the so-called culture war.
I had a quick search and i only found one case - a Michael J Dale covered in various outlets alleging dismissal for MAGA support back in 2018. However, i cant find that the case actually went to court. It appears Michael has decided against testing his claim in court?
I can find some cases for the opposite - dismissal for criticising president Trimp:
Jeff Klinzman had his day in court and was awarded a payout.
Rob Rogers didn’t go through courts but former employer on record in the Guardian newspaper confirming reason for his dismissal was his criticism of trump.
Craig Silverman again didn’t go via courts but his previous employer confirmed the reason for his shows termination.
Allegations that don’t appear to have gone to court yet:
Dr. Bandy Lee (2020) Gabriel Noronha (2020)
Cases (as in court cases) are just the easily visible tip of the iceberg. We do not see the aggrieved who did not make their story public for whatever reason.
It's a little bit like majoring in Iranian studies, insulting the Ayatollah and prophet on Twitter and then being upset when you get barred from the country and people start professionally ditching you. Like, when you pursue an academic career with close ties to a country with a very different political set of values I would assume you understand the kind of diplomatic issues you can run into?
Nothing here means you shouldn't criticize China. In fact, the premise of the research becomes moot if you cannot criticize China.
If you want to study the ‘damage’ that a country is doing, it seems like it would serve you well to avoid ruffling too many feathers so that you can do your work in peace and without being accused of bias.
it evidently is or else we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. Everything in China is political which everyone knows who has ever interacted with Chinese institutions. (which you probably will if you study environmental damage in China).
It's really not that surprising that a professor is not going to associate with someone who posts vaguely racist cartoons to his ten followers on twitter if it costs them their visa.
If you really want a career that involves studying aspects of a foreign culture you better learn to navigate the waters or you won't have a career, that's not really a new thing. If you're an archaeologist you probably won't be one for long if you insult the governments that let you access your dig sites, is that really a scandal?
Huh? This is what the article says:
>> His research was in the field of environmental pollution.
The University’s New Loyalty Oath - https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oat...
It feels to me much more aimed at being able to fire people when controversy arrises than something used to actively screen new hires. Though perhaps the self-selection is also meant as a goal.
If you mean my speculation about political posts, then you're probably right. But if you mean the diversity pledge screening, then you couldn't be more wrong. From another article on the same subject:
> eight different departments affiliated with the life sciences used a diversity rubric to weed out applicants for positions. This was the first step: In one example, of a pool of 894 candidates was narrowed down to 214 based solely on how convincing their plans to spread diversity were.
https://reason.com/2020/02/03/university-of-california-diver...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Salaita_hiring_contro...
also, renowned foreign professors in the US are sometimes bullied and treated as badly as they are in China:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020...
Chinese government is of course far more authoritarian but it is wise to point out that things have been worsening in US academia over the last couple of years.
We all agree that the fact that this can happen is wrong, but what the student did is not just wishful thinking, they put their loved ones at risk. That’s very disrespectful of other people lives.
A PhD proofs that one is capable of conducting independent research on some topic. This story proofs that they are definitely not capable of conducting and directing independent research on China, so it makes no sense for this student to be on a PhD program anyways. They should have known better, since they were “China experts”, but they didn’t.
Both BLM and MAGA are incredibly mainstream movements.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”
I mean, there is clearly an argument that the funding, influence and prestige the Confucius institute grants also allows them influence, and that that influence is perhaps unwanted. But if that's the conclusion, we should demand a counter-pressure by parties that are better able to withstand chinese pressure, e.g. perhaps some coalition of European countries that reject the institute whole cloth. Unfortunately, I doubt the EU can do much here because it's already been infiltrated by governments that clearly appear to be under Chinese influence, such as Hungary, and it needs unanimity for most action; and of course Switzerland isn't even in the EU.
To put it another way: I have doubts a country like Switzerland would dare to pick this fight with China alone - but if so, how absurdly unreasonable is it to expect an individual professor to, without any kind of policy. The whole issue puts the wisdom of Switzerland's idea of independence at risk.
Also, I no matter how you reject China's actions, I think it's morally pretty questionable to put your partner's family at risk, even if you think you're in the right, even if you are.
1. https://www.fonoa.com/blog/eu-imports-from-china-after-the-v...
It is not that there is not an influence (it could be China as much as many other entities), but given the above it is transversal to the job.
“His girlfriend was shocked when she saw some of the tweets. Talking with him on the telephone, she begged him to stop. Not because she necessarily disagreed with anything. But because she was worried about retaliation by the Chinese government. «I'm in Switzerland, not China,» Gerber replied. «I can say what I want here.»
Sorry to sound harsh, but I would argue that level of naivety / ignorance pretty much should disqualify him from a PhD in anything related to modern day China.
He’s not stupid, perhaps just naive. If only those with nothing at stake criticize a repressive regime then nothing would ever change.
Including a "They would not support the other side, would they?"
This is from the country responsible for the patriot act
There are countries in the world who do not have a patriot act or similar. They can argue in place of the USA that the government of the country discussed in the article is totalitarian.
This is not saying anything about the CCPs control over research which is a very serious topic. As long as I don't see the relevant picture. It's a researcher not wanting to publish with a someone who posts racist stuff.
The latter is just as bad for the CCP and would also lead to the events we have seen.
But it's obvious that when you are doing Chinese studies paid by a Chinese university, then you're not free from repercussions when you tweet from a European country.
So yes, China is influencing European universities and the west appears to accept this.
All you have to do, is make the threat known, and punish enough people, that everyone else falls in line.
In this case, the behavior was directly caused by someone being justifiable afraid of something that could happen to them.
This is known as a "chilling effect".
So, yes, the CCP absolutely has something to do with the culture of fear that they created, that causes people to take these actions.