Major colleges face heat over Chinese scholarship ties as espionage concerns mount – Fox News

Congressional Inquiry into US-China Academic Partnerships and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Overview of the Investigation

A formal investigation has been launched by the U.S. China Select Committee into partnerships between American universities and the China Scholarship Council (CSC). The inquiry addresses concerns that these collaborations may compromise national security and undermine sustainable development principles by facilitating access to sensitive American research and technology. The committee has issued formal oversight letters to several major academic institutions, signaling an escalation in efforts to counter what it terms “systemic CCP infiltration” of U.S. academia.

• Dartmouth College
• University of Notre Dame
• Temple University
• University of Tennessee
• Campuses within the University of California system

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goal 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

The investigation directly relates to SDG 16, which calls for building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. The committee’s actions aim to ensure that U.S. academic institutions maintain integrity and transparency, free from foreign state-directed influence that could compromise national security and peaceful development. Allegations that the CSC program involves surveillance and ideological monitoring of students challenge the principles of justice and individual freedom central to SDG 16.

Key concerns cited by the committee include:

• The use of academic exchange as a guise for strategic infiltration.
• The placement of state-sponsored students in sensitive STEM fields.
• Potential conflicts with U.S. law, specifically Presidential Proclamation 10043, which restricts visas for individuals affiliated with China’s military-civil fusion strategy.

Scrutiny of International Collaboration under SDG 17 and SDG 4

While SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) and SDG 4 (Quality Education) advocate for global partnerships and international scholarships, this inquiry scrutinizes whether the CSC partnership is equitable and mutually beneficial. The committee suggests the program may function as a one-sided mechanism for technology transfer rather than a genuine collaboration for sustainable development. The structure of the CSC program, which requires reporting to Chinese state entities, raises questions about its alignment with the open and transparent spirit of international academic cooperation.

Program requirements that are under review include:

1. Mandatory quarterly reports from students to Chinese embassies or consulates detailing their research, publications, and ideological progress.
2. A contractual obligation for students to return to China for a minimum of two years upon completion of their studies.

Impact on SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

The investigation highlights significant risks to SDG 9, which focuses on fostering innovation and upgrading technological capabilities. The central concern is that the CSC program creates a pipeline for the transfer of sensitive U.S. research and intellectual property, particularly in STEM fields. This could undermine the long-term sustainability of U.S. innovation ecosystems. Furthermore, the inquiry notes that U.S. federal research grants may be indirectly subsidizing research conducted by CCP-affiliated students, diverting resources that could otherwise support national and global sustainable innovation goals.

To assess the impact, the committee has requested the following from universities:

• All contracts and correspondence with the CSC.
• A complete list of CSC-sponsored students, including their institutional affiliations before and after their studies.
• Records of any federally funded research that involved CSC students.
• Documentation of communications with the Departments of State and Homeland Security regarding potential visa issues for these students.

Institutional Responses and Program Adjustments

In response to the inquiry and growing concerns, several universities have begun to re-evaluate their involvement with the CSC. These actions represent a move toward ensuring that international partnerships are aligned with ethical standards and institutional integrity, as promoted by SDG 16.

• University of Notre Dame: Has reportedly terminated its CSC program, stating that participants were primarily in humanities fields.
• Dartmouth College: Has confirmed its decision to end participation in the CSC program, noting that “very few students” had participated over the last decade.
• University of Tennessee: Has initiated a formal review of the committee’s request and is preparing a response.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses issues related to international academic partnerships, technology transfer, national security, and institutional governance. Based on these themes, the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are relevant:

• SDG 4: Quality Education – The core of the article revolves around a scholarship program for international students to pursue higher education (Ph.D. studies) at American universities.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure – The investigation raises concerns about access to “sensitive American research and technology” and the placement of students in “sensitive STEM fields,” which directly relates to scientific research and innovation.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions – The article details an investigation by a congressional committee (“China Select Committee”) into universities. This action represents an effort by a state institution to ensure accountability, transparency, and adherence to national laws and security interests (like Presidential Proclamation 10043), which are central tenets of SDG 16.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals – The entire issue is about the nature and risks of a partnership between American universities and a Chinese state-affiliated entity (the China Scholarship Council). It scrutinizes a multi-stakeholder, cross-border partnership.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Several specific targets can be linked to the article’s content:

1. Target 4.b: “By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries…for enrolment in higher education, including…technical, engineering and scientific programmes, in developed countries.”
   • Explanation: The article focuses entirely on the China Scholarship Council (CSC), a program providing scholarships for Chinese students to study abroad, often in “sensitive STEM fields,” at universities in a developed country (the U.S.). The investigation scrutinizes the structure and implications of this type of scholarship program.
2. Target 9.5: “Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors in all countries…including…encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the number of…research and development workers…and public and private research and development spending.”
   • Explanation: The committee’s concern is that the CSC program is a “covert pipeline for Beijing to gain access to sensitive American research and technology.” The investigation questions whether U.S. federal research grants are “indirectly subsidizing” this technology transfer, linking directly to the governance of scientific research and R&D spending.
3. Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.”
   • Explanation: The China Select Committee’s investigation is an exercise in holding institutions (universities) accountable. By sending “formal oversight letters” and demanding “all contracts and correspondence with CSC,” the committee is pushing for greater transparency in the universities’ international partnerships and financial arrangements.
4. Target 17.17: “Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.”
   • Explanation: The article analyzes a partnership between public/private institutions (U.S. universities) and a foreign state-controlled entity (CSC). The investigation itself is a form of monitoring and evaluation of this partnership, highlighting potential risks and leading some universities, like Notre Dame and Dartmouth, to terminate the agreement based on this re-evaluation.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions or implies several quantitative and qualitative indicators:

• For Target 4.b:
  • Number of scholarship students: The article provides specific numbers, such as “around two dozen students per year” at Notre Dame and a program for “up to 15 Chinese PhD students annually” at Dartmouth. This is a direct indicator of the scale of the scholarship program.
  • Amount of financial support: The article details the financial structure: “CSC provides sponsored students with a living stipend and covers 50% of tuition,” with the host university covering the rest. This measures the financial resources mobilized by the partnership.
• For Target 9.5:
  • Amount of federal research funding: The article states that Dartmouth “won nearly half of its research funding, $169 million, from the federal government,” which is a direct indicator of R&D spending that could be impacted.
  • Number of students in STEM fields: The concern is specified for students placed “often in sensitive STEM fields,” indicating that the distribution of students across academic disciplines is a key metric.
  • Number of research publications: The requirement for students to submit “quarterly reports…on their research, publications” implies that publications are a tracked metric of research output.
• For Target 16.6:
  • Number of oversight investigations: The launch of the investigation and the sending of “formal oversight letters” is an indicator of institutional accountability mechanisms in action.
  • Disclosure of contracts and agreements: The committee’s demand for “all contracts and correspondence with CSC” points to the existence and transparency of such documents as an indicator of institutional accountability.
• For Target 17.17:
  • Number of participating institutions: The article lists several universities involved, including “Dartmouth, Notre Dame, Temple University, University of Tennessee and several campuses within the University of California system.”
  • Status of partnership agreements: The decisions by Notre Dame and Dartmouth to “terminate” or “end” their participation serve as a key indicator of the partnership’s evaluation and outcome.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: foxnews.com