Chinese Government Propaganda is Being Enthusiastically Embraced at U.S. Universities

“Confucius Institute.” It’s a benign sounding name which immediately conjures up visions of enlightenment and ancient Eastern wisdom. Indeed, that appears to be precisely the intent. Effective propaganda always drapes itself in cuddly messaging in order to distract from the nefarious agenda underneath. This is exactly what’s going on with Chinese government funded Confucius Institutes, which have sprung up at 500 universities worldwide, including 100 in the U.S.

Until yesterday, I had never heard of these entities, their direct connection to Chinese government propaganda, or the extent to which they’re multiplying. I’m sure 90% of you are in the same boat. The only reason I know anything about them now is thanks to an excellent article published in Politico titled, How China Infiltrated U.S. Classrooms.

First, let’s examine the direct links these institutes have to official Chinese efforts to propagandize overseas.

From Politico:

The Confucius Institutes’ goals are a little less wholesome and edifying than they sound—and this is by the Chinese government’s own account. A 2011 speech by a standing member of the Politburo in Beijing laid out the case: “The Confucius Institute is an appealing brand for expanding our culture abroad,” Li Changchun said. “It has made an important contribution toward improving our soft power. The ‘Confucius’ brand has a natural attractiveness. Using the excuse of teaching Chinese language, everything looks reasonable and logical.”

Li, it now seems, was right to exult. More than a decade after they were created, Confucius Institutes have sprouted up at more than 500 college campuses worldwide, with more than 100 of them in the United States—including at The George Washington University, the University of Michigan and the University of Iowa. Overseen by a branch of the Chinese Ministry of Education known colloquially as Hanban, the institutes are part of a broader propaganda initiative that the Chinese government is pumping an estimated $10 billion into annually, and they have only been bolstered by growing interest in China among American college students.

“Coordinate the efforts of overseas and domestic propaganda, [and] further create a favorable international environment for us,” Chinese minister of propaganda Liu Yunshan exhorted his compatriots in a 2010 People’s Daily article. “With regard to key issues that influence our sovereignty and safety, we should actively carry out international propaganda battles against issuers such as Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, human rights and Falun Gong. … We should do well in establishing and operating overseas cultural centers and Confucius Institutes.”

Beijing treats this project seriously, as evidenced by who runs the show. Hanban (shorthand for the ruling body of the Office of Chinese Language Council International, a branch of the Ministry of Education) is classified technically as a nonprofit agency, but it is dominated by Communist Chinese officialdom. Representatives from 12 top state agencies—including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the State Press and Publishing Administration, a propaganda bureau—sit on its executive council. Hanban’s director general is on the Chinese state council, the 35-member board that basically runs the country.

Why are colleges embracing this ,you ask? As is typically the case with such things, it’s all about the money. Universities that don’t want, or lack the resources to, spend the time or money on Chinese studies departments figure they’ll accept one for free even if its primary function is to disseminate foreign government propaganda.

As Politico notes:

Hanban has been shrewd in compelling universities to host Confucius Institutes. Marshall Sahlins, a retired University of Chicago anthropologist and author of the 2014 pamphlet Confucius Institutes: Academic Malware, reports that each Confucius Institute comes with “$100,000 … in start up costs provided by Hanban, with annual payments of the like over a five-year period, and instruction subsidized as well, including the air fares and salaries of the teachers provided from China. … Hanban also agrees to send textbooks, videos, and other classroom materials for these courses—materials that are often welcome in institutions without an important China studies program of their own.” And each Confucius Institute typically partners with a Chinese university.

They’re kind of like restaurant franchises: Open the kit, and you’re in business. American universities can continue to collect full tuition from their students while essentially outsourcing instruction in Chinese. In other words, it’s free money for the schools. At many (though not all) Confucius-hosting campuses, students can receive course credit for classes completed at the institute.

Disturbingly, there appears to be absolutely zero academic freedom within these Confucius Institutes, which you’d think goes against the entire idea of a university.

The Chinese teachers are thoroughly vetted by Hanban, according to Sahlins’ report. They “must have a strong sense of mission, glory, and responsibility and be conscientious and meticulous in [their] work,” Hanban says. They’re also explicitly instructed to toe Beijing’s line on controversial political questions. There can be no discussion whatsoever of human rights in China, or the Tiananmen Square massacre. Sahlins found that should a student raise an uncomfortable question about, say, the political status of Tibet, Hanban’s instructors are ordered to refocus the discussion on, say, Tibet’s natural beauty or indigenous cultural practices (which, ironically, Beijing has spent decades stamping out).

Matteo Mecacci of the advocacy group International Campaign for Tibet requested a sampling of the Institute’s course materials from a D.C. area university several years ago. “Instead of scholarly materials published by credible American authors, not to speak of Tibetan writers, what we received were books and DVDs giving the Chinese narrative on Tibet published by China Intercontinental Press,” he wrote in Foreign Policy, “which is described by a Chinese government-run website as operating ‘under the authority of the State Council Information Office … whose main function is to produce propaganda products.’”

One student I spoke to—a junior at the University of Kentucky, which is home to a Confucius Institute—recalls attending a Confucius event at which another student, who was considering studying abroad in China, asked about the air pollution there. The response from the Confucius faculty was that the reports of pollution were “misinformation promoted in the U.S. media.” The student says Confucius faculty also “glorified and glossed over” negative aspects of Chinese culture and politics. Another student, a Kentucky senior who has taken classes at the same Confucius Institute, agrees that the institute “promotes an overly rosy picture of Chinese culture,” though, the student adds, “I don’t think it’s a problem for students to take advantage of [Confucius Institute] resources as long as they view the institute with a critical eye and round out their perspective on China with other experiences and points of view.”

Even worse, many of these universities seems to know full well that the whole thing’s shady as hell, so administrators simply refuse to talk.

Many of those universities who maintain Confucius Institutes appear to go to great lengths to shield them from criticism. Last year, Rachelle Peterson released a thorough report about Confucius Institutes for the National Association of Scholars, a right-leaning academic organization where Peterson is a scholar. At the heart of her report were 12 case studies of Confucius Institutes at New York and New Jersey universities. Over the course of her reporting, Peterson says, “There were a lot of unanswered emails, a lot of unanswered phone calls” (an experience shared by this journalist). When she did manage to set up interviews with Confucius Institute staff, they were often canceled at the last minute, like those at the University of Albany and the University of Binghamton. Another time, when she managed to secure an interview with a Confucius Institute staff member, he insisted that the meeting “happen in a basement … not in his office.” He seemed afraid of being caught, she says.

Totally normal. Meanwhile…

The most disturbing event transpired at Alfred University in upstate New York. There, Peterson, says, she had “called the Confucius Institute, spoken to a teacher … and received permission to sit in on [a class].” As she observed the Chinese-language class, she recalls, the provost of the university charged into the classroom, interrupting the lesson. He ordered her removal from the classroom and told her she had to leave the campus immediately. The provost and a Confucius staffer swiftly escorted her off campus. (Alfred University did not respond to a request for comment asking to confirm or deny Peterson’s account.)

Fortunately, there has been some limited pushback, but we should encourage a lot more.

One institution that bucked the trend was the University of Chicago. The school opened a Confucius Institute in 2010, which quickly proved controversial. To Bruce Lincoln, a now-retired religion professor at Chicago who then served on the faculty senate, the Confucius Institute represented the “subcontracting [of the] educational mission” in the United States—a “hostile takeover of U.S. higher education by a foreign power,” as he told me. (Prior to his battle against the Confucius Institute, Lincoln was involved in another fight at the University of Chicago, against the establishment of a Milton Friedman Institute, which would have been largely funded by conservative donors. That too represented a subcontracting of the education mission, he believes—in this case, the “corporatization of universities.”)

Incredibly, it gets even worse. These propaganda outfits are also trying to get into the minds of American children at as young an age as possible. Within the U.S. public school system they are known as Confucius Classrooms.

Liu’s orders have been heeded. The first Confucius Institute opened in South Korea in 2004. They quickly spread to Japan, Australia, Canada and Europe. The United States, China’s biggest geopolitical rival, has been a particular focus: Fully 40 percent of Confucius Institutes are stateside. In addition to the Institutes at universities, Hanban also operates hundreds of so-called Confucius Classrooms in primary and secondary schools. The public school system of Chicago, for example, has outsourced its Chinese program to Confucius Classrooms.

Confucius Classrooms, for younger students, are also ascendant these days: In October, local media reported that three new ones would be planted in Texas public schools, and UMass Boston is helping develop them at schools in Massachusetts, including the prestigious Cambridge Rindge and Latin School, where a Confucius Classroom just launched. At scores of universities, meanwhile, the institutes are expanding both physically and programmatically. New courses and scholarships at existing ones are announced all the time. And they’re growing rapidly overseas, particularly these days in Africa, where China has been aggressively expanding its footprint in recent years.

I highlighted this article for a couple of reasons. First, its a very disturbing trend that’s increasingly being embraced across the U.S. educational system. Second, its another piece of evidence proving our culture is in the midst of a ethical and intellectual downward spiral at a systemic level. The necessary response is to utterly reject such a system and create and embrace new ways of doing things wherever and whenever possible.

I wrote about the decline of traditional education in a three part series last year. Links are below.

It’s Time to Rethink Education – Part 1 (Indoctrination)

It’s Time to Rethink Education – Part 2 (Unschooling)

It’s Time to Rethink Education – Part 3 (The Future of College)

If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.

In Liberty,
Michael Krieger

Like this post?
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G


Follow me on Twitter.

31 thoughts on “Chinese Government Propaganda is Being Enthusiastically Embraced at U.S. Universities”

  1. You are right to open eyes to the limitations of the typical approach to education, but really, TEFL, TESOL and most universities are teaching English and Anglo Saxon ways to overseas students either at home or abroad. Isn’t that just the way it is?

    Even if the Chinese teacher bangs on about how neat Tibet is, surely you do your own research and get a fuller picture?

    Reply
    • The issue here, as clearly described in my post and the Politico article is.

      1) These Confucius Institutes are deliberate attempts to propagandize abroad, and the program comes directly from the Chinese government for that purpose.
      2) The teachers are not allowed academic freedom, which should not be permitted in a university setting.
      3) These things are springing up at primary and secondary schools now. Again, the teachers involved are vetted by the Chinese government, and are censored.

      If this doesn’t bother you, all good. It bothers me, and I suspect will bother a lot of Americans if they learn about it. Which is the point of this article.

    • Language is used to control or spread influence overseas. Points 1,2 and 3 equally apply to the English-speaking institutions pumping English out overseas. I worked a while in Africa, the propaganda and manipulation behind colonial style English teaching books was shocking. In another form of control, Franco jumped all over so many Spanish by outlawing their local languages.

      Point is, whether you, me or Dupree like it or not, the CI spreading of Chinese state thinking seems to be just another embedded trait of mankind.

      But as you advocate sidestepping established rottenness and setting up alternative more honourable structures, in this case, the aim should be to develop students with the wherewithal to question what they learn. This should be the aim to deal with dubious agendas of home grown teachers as well as Chinese. With a questioning mind, nobody can brainwash a student, and they can ably separate the good bits from the dross.

    • Mike, I hope you’re joking?

      China’s supposed economic growth has morphed into a carefully crafted illusion over the last decade. Which is another reason they’re extending their Maoist tentacles into North America.

      This whole Confuscious Trojan horse thing needs to be torched ASAP.

  2. How come you have such a problem with Chinese “propaganda”. What is your opinion about american PROPAGANDA around the world? China, despite your criticism, isn’t running around the world bombing other countries to shit like the united states and then bragging about how GREAT AND POWERFUL AND SUPERIOR!!! we are to all other countries in the world.

    Reply
    • Congratulations George, you have the distinct honor of composing one of the most idiotic, ignorant and lazy comments ever posted on this site.

      Clearly you’ve never read a single other word I’ve ever written, or you wouldn’t have uttered such stupidity. As everyone here knows, my primary subject matter over the course of six years and two Presidencies has been a scathing critique of the perniciousness of American propaganda and militarism. In fact, I’ve quite literally written thousands of posts covering these two topics.

      A simple life lesson you could perhaps learn from this embarrassing experience is that it would behoove you to at least have a cursory knowledge of the topic on which you care to opine before opening your mouth.

  3. Michael,

    I have years worth of experience attending the U. of M’s CI programs. I cannot speak about any other CI but that one. I only occasionally felt as though I was propagandized during the programs. I learned a great deal about Chinese history, literature and music and arts. I made friends. I miss those programs and people a great deal now that we have moved from the area. Here is a link to their site: http://www.confucius.umich.edu/

    There are some videos of talks and performances on the site above so you can judge for yourself. The CI often sponsored performances and talks with the Japanese and Korean Institutes/depts. at the university.

    I was saddened by this article. I have Chinese friends and this CI was such a blessing for me in helping me understand their culture. No, it was not perfect. Yes, there was some really obvious speakers who read from the script verbatim. But the chance to hear most of the speakers and see the performances of several different cultures woven together was an amazing gift.

    Reply
  4. Another reason why the entire Russia is the root of all evil canard is dangerous. All of the MSM’s focus on Russia provides perfect cover for China to come in through the back door.

    I have had to deal with the Chinese off and on for years for business reasons. I have purposefully made it more off than on because they have proven over and over again that they cannot be trusted at all. Especially if there is intellectual property (patents) involved.

    In reality they are no different than the Somali pirates. Same consciousness and same complete lack of morals and ethics. The only thing they understand is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

    So if students want to learn about Chinese history, music, literature, arts, etc. there’s no need for an Institute on campuses for that exercise.

    Reply
  5. “…With the shock of war, however, the State comes into its own again. The Government, with no mandate from the people, without consultation of the people, conducts all the negotiations, the backing and filling, the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it into collision with some other Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country into war…War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity…Other values such as artistic creation, knowledge, reason, beauty, the enhancement of life, are instantly and almost unanimously sacrificed, and the significant classes who have constituted themselves the amateur agents of the State, are engaged not only in sacrificing these values for themselves but in coercing all other persons into sacrificing them.”

    http://fair-use.org/randolph-bourne/the-state/

    Mission almost accomplished Genaro.

    Reply
  6. Well! Ain’t YOU a touchy one! No, Mikee, I haven’t read none of your “scathing critiques”. I just read your blather and asked a simple question. Which you, evidently, don’t wanna answer.

    Sah right doe. You just keep on bein’ scathing or whatever.

    Reply
    • It seems you have trouble reading the english language.

      I wrote. “The perniciousness of American propaganda and militarism.”

      And I don’t like any kind of government propaganda, but especially not propaganda inserted into U.S. public schools and colleges by foreign governments surreptitiously.

      Question(s) answered.

    • Yeah, ok but Confucious Institute is hardly a chinee commee propaganda tool surreptiously doing anything out of order.

      Shee Genaro! You know where I can get paid for writing a few sentences? Holla Atcha Boy!

    • As was clearly admitted by Chinese government officials, these institutions are related to state propaganda efforts.

      But we have already determined that you either have issues with reading in english, or are being intentionally deceptive.

      I think it’s clear by now which one it is.

      Bye, bye “George”

  7. “There can be no discussion whatsoever of human rights in China, or the Tiananmen Square massacre”

    There was no Tiananmen Square Massacre

    Yes, people died.
    Not at Tiananment Square, though, but in Beijing.
    I bet you didn’t know that.

    Fake News is not new.

    Reply
  8. As a language teacher at the Kentucky University mentioned in your article, I both took Mandarin classes and worked with some of the Chinese faculty cum graduate students. They all lived in segregated dormitories manned by Chinese political officers, who kept close eyes on them. Mostly young women, whose families were back in the PRC lest they should decide to stay in America. The instructors were all Communist Party members and from families of fairly high political rank in China. The situation was identical to my teenage years dealing with students from behind the Iron Curtain under the old Soviet system. As for propaganda, no institutions, including American ones, are going to promote an unfavorable view of their government. We operate many similar organizations too.

    Reply
    • “We operate many similar organizations too.”

      Apples to oranges, Timothy.

      As I already said to Jill, let me know when the Maoists start allowing Mark Twain Institutes into their universities with the exact same allowances as the Confuscious Institutes are getting here.

      There is zero similarity as long as they are allowed to push their communist propaganda in US schools while not allowing anything of the sort in their schools.

      Let’s get real. That is where the rubber meets the road. The US has a lot of problems. But there’s no way that Xi Jinping and the Politburo would ever allow one school in China, much less 100 and counting. Jinping and his fellow henchman are far more dangerous and despotic than Putin and company ever dreamed of being.

      If there is anything that points at why communism will never work, it’s the fact that every single billionaire in China is a direct descendant of Mao. Of course you could easily argue that the fact that there are any billionaires in China to begin with, is an even larger condemnation of communism.

      BTW, their music sucks massive amounts of hind tit and their art is repetitive and boring.

  9. Semantics. People were massacred because of the protests held at Tiananmen Square, so the phrase “Tiananmen Square Massacre” is not fake news.

    For example, would you say that “Watergate tapes” is also fake news becuase the tapes were not recorded at the Watergate Hotel? Turmp has really ruiend the meaning of the word fake.

    Reply
    • OK then BTN look at it this way.

      How many people were massacred at Tianenmen Square ?

      If that number is ZERO – which it very likely is…..

      …then the phrase “Tianenmen Square Massacre” is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. Correct ?

      Ergo it is fake news. It manifestly IS FAKE NEWS.

      We are told thousands died, THOUSANDS, some even say 10 thousand. But this is a gross exaggeration. The true number is probably 200-300 and this included soldiers. Yes those protesters were not all peaceful.

      Claiming “thousands died” for decades is TOTALLY FAKE NEWS.

      Tianenmen Square was a prototype Colour Revolution. The students were never protesting about “democracy”. This is an outright lie. They were protesting about dire economic conditions (eg 40% inflation) and there are US Embassy cables to prove it.

      Now I know this is a bitter pill to swallow. You have been lied to. You have been conned. It will require reflection on your part, but you need to do it. I had to.

      I have had people mock me in the past for trying to point this out. How are these people any different from the Hillbots who shout about “Russian election hacking” and laugh at the sensible people who try to enlighten them.

      And think about it. Having had the mainstream media lie to you your entire life, why would it surprise you that they executed a massive lie in the late 1980s when it was far easier to pull off?

    • Ian,

      To write that there weren’t any protests at Tianenmen Square in 1989 is FAKE NEWS. Wait, you didn’t write that? Well, nobody (on this blog) wrote that “thousands died” either.

      The real question: How many people were massacred (as a result of the protests) at Tianenmen Square?
      Answer: Enough to validate the label “Tianenmen Square Massacre”

      I’ll just let others make up their mind on whether the labele fit. Here is some good info, including the embassy cables you referenced.
      https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB16/

  10. I agree with the that waht China is doing is no different thatn what any other country would do. I doubt the State Departemnt talks much about salvery and the civil war.

    The thing I find disturbing is the fact that children (who are more susceptible to brainwashing) are exposed to this as well. Foreign Governement agents should not be educating students who aren’t at least Juniors in High School.

    Reply
    • BTN

      Seems you are either a) hard of reading/understanding or b) you are prone to being brainwashed – and actually prefer it that way.

      I did NOT say there were no PROTESTS at Tianenmen Square.
      I said that there was no MASSACRE at Tianenmen Square

      So nice try but you just are putting words into my mouth that I didn’t say (dishonesty or a lack of intelligence on your part)

      Also, I am NOT accusing anyone on this blog saying THOUSANDS died. I am accusing the MEDIA of saying it. They said it ad nauseam which is why people were brainwashed into believing it – people like YOU.

      So less of your strawmen please.

      You believe what you want pal. I seek the truth but clearly you are happy with your 30 year brainwashed version.

      FACT – There was NO MASSACRE at Tianenmen Square.

      Why can you not understand this simple fact?

      You have no arguments it appears. All you have is a series of strawmen, a diverion with your cables (which prove nothing) and a stubborn streak to cling on to the lies you were told. I don’t know why people are like this but I see it all the time. It’s sad.

      Like Mark Twain said it’s easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled.

    • Another thing. If you had even read the cables you linked up yourself certain things should be obvious to you.

      Can you not see the pictures of burned out tanks and military vehicles? Does the evidence of your own eyes not give you pause for thought about the official narrative (that being that the evil Chinese walked army in and simply machine gunned peaceful protesters, women, children old ladies and kittens? And YES kittens is a flippant comment not to be taken literally. I feel I have to spell things out to you)

      And statements such as :

      “Armoured personnel carriers battled crowds of civilians for 7 hours before they reached the square”

      Not the words “BEFORE they reached the square”…..and what about these comments?

      “Casualty figures remain uncertain and unconfirmed”
      “Demonstrators besieged troops with rocks bottles and molotov cocktails”
      “Martial law was declared 2 weeks earlier”
      “it is believed the firing started when protesters beat a soldier to death”

      So here we have evidence of:

      Burned out army vehicles
      EXTREME protester violence (ie a response is unavoidable)
      The fact that martial law was imposed 2 weeks before…not as if violence was the FIRST option as we have been led to believe

      Remember we were told these were peaceful protesters just wanting their democracy (who told you that I wonder?) That was an utter lie.

      What was the actual death toll at Tianenmen Square in your opinion ??

      I would sell at ten.

      As I say, people DID die in these protests but the version you have been fed by your media trying to imply China are hardline devils is totally false.

      Next time you mindlessly link something up to “further your argument” you ought to make sure you read it and that it does actually further your argument.

Leave a Reply