28 Aug 19 | Academic Freedom, News and features, Turkey, Turkey Uncensored
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
Noémi Lévy-Aksu
On 26 July 2019, Turkey’s highest court brought new hope to Turkish academics when it ruled that ten educators who had signed the petition “We will not be a Party to This Crime!” (Bu Suça Ortak Olmayacağız) had been tried unfairly and in violation of their rights.
The petition, created by the Kurdish rights group Academics for Peace, called on the Turkish government to “prepare the conditions for negotiations and create a road map that would lead to a lasting peace which includes the demands of the Kurdish political movement”. It was signed by over two thousand academics, all of whom were then individually charged with “conducting propaganda for a terrorist organisation”. The news that the resulting trials might violate the signatories rights sparked a firestorm of controversy in Turkey, where academia is tightly controlled and public discussion of the trials has been constrained.
Noémi Lévy-Aksu is an historian of the late Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey and an aspiring lawyer. She has French and Turkish citizenship and was working as an assistant professor at Boğaziçi University until 2017, when she was dismissed for signing the Academics for Peace petition, an experience about which she previously spoke to Index in 2018. Lévy-Aksu is currently a teaching fellow at the London School of Economics and she is involved in human rights advocacy and volunteer legal work. She still speaks out about her experience and she spoke with Index’s Sophia Paley about the latest developments in the challenges facing Turkish academics and their students.
Index: Thousands of academics have been dismissed for political reasons since the coup in 2016, most of them were not signatories of the Academics for Peace petition. Why do you think the Academics for Peace cases have gotten so much more international attention than these other cases?
Noémi Lévy-Aksu: The case of the Academics for Peace has become emblematic of the attacks on academic freedom and freedom of expression in today’s Turkey. The sole ground on which academics have been threatened, dismissed and prosecuted is their endorsement of a declaration demanding the end of state violence against civilians and the resumption of the peace process. In this respect, it is one of the multiple cases of criminalisation of critical thought and expression, which target journalists, political actors, human rights defenders as well. The degree of international attention is also due to the efforts of the Academics for Peace themselves, who have established solidarity networks in Turkey and abroad to support the signatories and raise awareness about their cases among academics, human rights defenders and policy-makers.
Index: What do you think will happen to the petition signatories who have already been sentenced, including those who legally forfeited their right to an appeal?
Lévy-Aksu: Turkey’s constitutional court has ruled that the conviction of the signatories of the Academics for Peace declaration was a violation of their rights and considered that the declaration was within the scope of academic freedom. The court also ordered that a copy of the decision be sent to the lower courts involved in the process. Accordingly, those still under prosecution should be acquitted, re-trials should be held for the ones who have received a final sentence and the regional courts of appeal should reverse the conviction for the cases that are pending on appeal.
Index: Do you think that the high court’s verdict represents a genuine turning point for academic freedom in Turkey, or is that a false hope? What is the verdict’s significance?
Lévy-Aksu: The decision of the constitutional court is an important landmark, following a few other positive decisions acknowledging the wide scope of freedom of expression in international law and Turkish legislation. In this respect, it brings hope not only to academics, but also to all those who are currently prosecuted for their opinions and statements in Turkey, as well as to the national and national human rights defenders. However, the decision was adopted with a one-vote majority and triggered harsh criticism in the pro-governmental media. Legally, the decisions of the constitutional court are binding on inferior courts, but in the last few years some inferior court judges have proved reluctant to apply those decisions, so the next few months will be crucial to evaluate the legal impact of this judgment.
Finally, one should not forget that the criminal prosecution of the Academics for Peace is just one aspect of the multiple attacks against academic freedom in today’s Turkey. Arbitrary dismissals and obstacles to critical research remain burning issues, which cannot be solved without a strong political will.
Index: According to pro-state media, 1,071 academics have signed a manifesto condemning the high court’s verdict. Why do you think they would do such a thing? Do they truly believe their fellow academics are promoting terrorism? What is their motivation?
Lévy-Aksu: The “1071” declaration was initiated by a few university rectors, who did not hesitate to stand against the highest court of the country to show their loyalty to the political power. The number “1071” was chosen as a reference the Malazgirt battle in 1071, but it soon appeared that the list was not accurate: some signatories appeared twice, while a few declared that their names had been included without their consent. One lecturer from Istanbul Aydın University even resigned to protest against her name being used without her consent. As for the more than a thousand academics who chose to endorse such a declaration, some are active supporters to the government, while others probably feared sanctions if they answered negatively to their rectors’ requests. In any case, this declaration gives an idea of the atmosphere in these universities, where administrations are completely beholden to political power and the academic staff have little choice but active or passive consent.
Index: How familiar is the Turkish public with the government’s tightening restrictions on academic freedom? What do you believe is their reaction?
Lévy-Aksu: Turkey’s public sphere is so divided that it is impossible to talk about the “Turkish public”. The case of the Academics for Peace petition has received attention both in pro-governmental and in independent media, from very different perspectives. In the pro-governmental discourse, purges in academia are presented as part of the fight against terror and its supporters, either Gulenists or pro-Kurdish. In that view, state security and the interests of the nation are involved, so academic freedom is not important. On the other hand, restrictions on academic freedom are increasingly criticised in the public sphere, as part of the broader violations of human rights and freedoms in Turkey, but also because of their negative impact on the quality of teaching and research in the Turkish academia.
Index: Speaking of the quality of Turkish higher education, how do solidarity academies differ from other private educational institutions, and what is their role in providing space for open inquiry and critical thought?
Lévy-Aksu: Solidarity academies are alternative structures created by academics who believe that new spaces are needed to resist attacks against academic freedom and critical thought. Many of them, though not all, are signatories to the Academics for Peace petition who were dismissed from their academic positions. Solidarity academies started as local, informal initiatives in various cities of Turkey, such as Eskişehir, Kocaeli, Dersim, Mersin, Izmir, Ankara and Istanbul. Several have now become more organised and obtained a legal status as associations. Contrary to private educational institutions, they are non-profit organisations and they aim to develop innovative approaches to research and teaching, with special emphasis on freedom and critical thinking. While they do not seek to reproduce the conventional academic system, these academies have connections with international research networks and scholars and they make an important contribution to knowledge production in Turkey. As an increasing number of countries witness attacks on academic freedom, such initiatives are vital to develop transnational networks of solidarity and support academics and students affected by these developments.
Index: The Turkish government is increasingly relying on anti-terrorism legislation to attack its political enemies. Why was this specific justification chosen, and how does it change the legal process?
Lévy-Aksu: Using anti-terror legislation to attack political enemies is a strategy that has been used by the Turkish successive governments for decades. As in other countries, anti-terrorism legislation enables the state to limit the rights of the suspects, as illustrated by the anti-terror law adopted after the state of emergency was lifted in July 2018. Inter alia, it allows longer custody periods and defenders and lawyers can be prevented from accessing the case file. Beyond these legal aspects, labelling critical voices as terrorist is a political strategy that aims to shape public opinion and increase support of the government. It presents the prosecution and imprisonment of opponents as legitimate and necessary for the interests of the nation.
Index: The Turkish Constitution includes provisions forbidding “[u]niversities, members of the teaching staff and their assistants” from engaging “in activities directed against the existence and independence of the State, and against the integrity and indivisibility of the Nation and the Country”. This unity of the nation includes linguistic and cultural unity, as shown in the mandate that “No language other than Turkish shall be taught as a mother tongue to Turkish citizens at any institutions of training or education”. Do these guarantees of a unitary ethnostate for Turks influence how the Academics for Peace petition signatories and others were treated?
Lévy-Aksu: This question raises several important issues which it is impossible to fully answer here. The first issue is related to the tension between academic freedom and national security. This is not specific to Turkey (see for instance the much debated Prevent legislation in the UK), but since the beginning of the republic, regardless of the political orientation of the government (and with a few exceptions), the state’s approach to academic freedom has been particularly restrictive in Turkey.
The second issue has to do with Turkish nationalism and its negative perception of cultural and linguistic diversity, which has constituted an important aspect of the Kurdish issue in the last decades. Education in their mother tongue is a recurrent demand of the Kurdish rights movement. While the government seemed willing to develop a more conciliatory approach to the question during the peace negotiations, since the process collapsed, a rigid version of Turkish nationalism has been on the rise again. As an urgent call to stop state violence against civilians, the declaration of the Academics for Peace was not directly related to the question of cultural rights, but it emphasised the need for a peaceful resolution to a conflict that has lasted for decades. The attacks against the signatories illustrate how, under the current government, human rights and democratic values are treated as subversive when they are used to articulate a critique of the state. Meanwhile, countless citizens have been imprisoned or prosecuted for their political and cultural activities on behalf of Kurdish rights and democracy.
Index: Some observers emphasise the worsening situation for academics after the failed coup of 2016. Do you agree that 2016 was the turning point, or if not, when did these problems begin?
Lévy-Aksu: Attacks on academic freedom did not start with the failed coup of 2016, nor actually with the AKP government. With respect to the Academics for Peace signatories, the repression started right after the petition was released in January 2016. The signatories were immediately the targets of hate speech, the first dismissals occurred, and four signatories were imprisoned. However, after a state of emergency was proclaimed in July 2016, the process dramatically accelerated and the purges targeting Gulenists, the Academics for Peace signatories and other opponents became massive in higher education, as in other sectors. The civil servants dismissed by the emergency decrees did not only lose their jobs: their passports were revoked, and they received a life-long ban on public service. In addition, they continue to face informal practices of black listing and discrimination. This process has been described as “civil death” by some signatories and continue to have dramatic moral and material consequences.
Index: Are you worried or hopeful for the future of Turkey’s education system, and why?
Lévy-Aksu: The current situation of Turkey’s education system is extremely worrying. Successive reforms implemented in primary and secondary education have further disorganised the system, and all levels of education have experienced purges. Higher education has been decimated by these purges. Even though not all critical academics have been dismissed, the space for academic freedom has dramatically shrunk in all universities and many choose self-censorship to avoid possible sanctions. Both the Turkish Higher Education Council and the Scientific and Technological Research Council (TUBITAK) have been discredited by their prominent role in the dismissal and marginalisation of critical scholars. The students are the main victims of this process, both because they have lost many dedicated and inspiring teachers, but also because they are themselves targeted by repression, both at the disciplinary and criminal levels. There are tens of thousands students imprisoned today in Turkey.
Yet, the resilience of civil society in Turkey is remarkable, and international solidarity has enabled a number of critical scholars to continue their research away from Turkish academia. It is my hope that the experience academics have gained of alternative structures such as the solidarity academies and the international networks developed during these years will contribute to transforming the education system for the better when there is a political opening. [/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1566481960332-5be62801-2970-10″ taxonomies=”8843″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
27 Aug 19 | Academic Freedom, China, News and features, United States
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/b21faoXVpM4″][vc_column_text]“Students in the United States must be free to express their views, without feeling pressured to censor their speech…We can and will push back hard against the Chinese government’s efforts to chill free speech on American campuses.” This is what Marie Royce, US assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs, said in her address welcoming Chinese students to American universities in July 2019.
As much a warning as a welcome, the speech illustrates the balancing act America and other western countries often perform when engaging with Chinese people and organisations on campus. The presence of the Chinese Communist Party on campuses severely limits the free expression of Chinese students, and threatens more broadly to curtail academic freedom, the right to protest, and the ability to engage with the uncomfortable truths about the Chinese government honestly.
To understand the situation, one must first understand the unique nature of the party apparatus. The CCP attempts to control not only China’s political arena but every aspect of Chinese citizens’ lives, at home and abroad, including on US campuses. Dr Teng Biao, a well-known Chinese human rights activist and lawyer, tells Index on Censorship: “It’s quite unique. The party’s goal is to maintain its rule inside China at all costs, and so it sets about making the world safe for the CCP. It is all-directional.”
That control looks very different abroad than it does at home. CCP does not control much of its foreign influence network directly. “It has different ways of implementing influence,” Teng explains. Some Chinese organisations “are directed by the Chinese government and don’t have much independence in making decisions.” However, other organisations, such as alumni networks and Chinese businesses, as well as Chinese students, have their own agency and goals, and operate largely independently.
Sources from US intelligence agencies to the New York Times have reported that the Confucius Institutes, which teach Chinese language skills to non-Chinese people, and the Chinese Students and Scholars Associations, which are student-led organisations that provide resources for Chinese students and promote Chinese culture, are directed by the CCP. The CSSA has worked closely with Beijing to promote its agenda and suppress critical speech. According to Royce, “there are credible reports of Chinese government officials pressuring Chinese students to monitor other students and report on one another” to officials, and the CSSA often facilitates this spying.
Similarly, the Confucius Institutes, have a history of stealing and censoring academic materials, have been accused of attempting to control the Chinese studies curriculum, and have been implicated in what FBI director Cristopher Wray recently described to Congress as “a thousand plus investigations all across the country” into possible CCP-directed theft of intellectual property on campuses.
Beijing’s influence is perhaps the most indirect and complex with regard to Chinese students themselves. The same day Royce made her welcome address, 300 Chinese nationalists disrupted a demonstration against China’s Hong Kong extradition bill at the University of Queensland, Australia, leading to violent clashes. On 7 August 2019 more violence between detractors of the extradition law and supporters of the CCP occurred at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, in what China’s consul general in Auckland calls a “spontaneous display of patriotism”. Earlier this year, Chinese students at MacMaster University in Canada, incensed by a lecture on the Chinese government’s treatment of the Uigher ethnic minority, allegedly filmed the event and sent the video to the Chinese consulate in Toronto, which denied involvement but praised their actions as patriotic. [/vc_column_text][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/kW3c211dy8g”][vc_column_text]Speaking to Index about the Queensland protest, Dr Jonathan Sullivan, director of China Programs at the University of Nottingham Asia Research Institute, said “Many Chinese students have passionately held views and they sometimes mobilise to voice them. I don’t think it’s helpful to see such mobilisations as being the work of the party, although there is also evidence that party/state organisations sometimes provide help.” Sullivan notes, however, that their passion and convictions “are themselves a product of the authoritarian information order created by the party-state” and that “there is among Chinese students potential to react in an organised way.”
Isaac Stone Fish, a prominent journalist and a senior fellow at the Asia Society’s Center on U.S.-China Relations in New York City told Index “[The party is] very effective generally at keeping students in an ideological framework,” convincing them, for instance, that “the communist party and China are the same” and thus motivating them to protect the party. However,he agrees that students’ convictions belong to them. “It’s ok for Chinese students to feel that Beijing’s policies are correct,” he says. Problems only arise when they try to control the conversation.
As the extent of the CCP’s influence is gradually revealed to the public, there have been fears that governments will retaliate indiscriminately and restrict visas for all Chinese students abroad, or withhold them specifically from members of the CSSA. Tensions over immigration, especially in the US, mean such a reaction is possible, but as Sullivan says: “We should keep in mind that most Chinese students care about their degree and getting on in life, and we all must resist any temptation to homogenise — let alone demonise — them.” Stone Fish concurs. “There is…a danger of a racially-tinged backlash against Chinese people, which would be an ethical and strategic mistake.”
Sullivan is concerned that many universities treat Chinese students like an easy source of income instead of treating them as students with unique and pressing needs. They have that in common with the party itself. One of the biggest dangers in dealing with the CCP, explains Stone Fish, is “its willingness to use Chinese students as bargaining chips” directing them to some universities and way from others to encourage political conformity. Western institutions are vulnerable to such a tactic, Teng claims, because they “care about money more than universal values,” and “They don’t profoundly realise” that the CCP “has become an urgent threat.”
So far, the western response to the issue has been inconsistent and uncertain. “I think universities need to develop a much clearer understanding of the issues,” Sullivan says. “These can be complex and university administrators are not generally China specialists who are able to identify the nuances, which makes policy and provision inadequate and potentially unbalanced.” Going forward, Stone Fish asserts, we should be “Educating college administrators about how the party works,” and “having universities work together.” Cooperation is essential, because “Beijing prefers to negotiate one-on-one,” but as a bloc, Universities have leverage of their own.
Demand for western education in China is strong and continues to grow, especially among the Chinese elite and middle class. However, universities can only use that demand to resist pressure from the CCP if they coordinate their response. Stone Fish concludes, “I think the greatest danger is giving in to Beijing’s demands not to have certain speakers, or allow the party to prevent certain voices from being heard.” [/vc_column_text][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1566913121795-e09fc4f8-7d31-10″ taxonomies=”8843″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
18 Jun 19 | Academic Freedom, News and features, Scholar at Risk
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]This article is part of an ongoing series created in partnership with Scholars at Risk, an international network of institutions and individuals whose mission it is to protect scholars, promote academic freedom, and defend everyone’s right to think, question, and share ideas freely and safely.[/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”107359″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][vc_column_text]
“I realised that I had been cheated by the Chinese government,” legal scholar Teng Biao said describing his drive to pursue a career in human rights law.
Teng said that he was motivated by the Tiananmen Square movement, the student-led protests that bloomed after the death of pro-reform communist leader Hu Yaobang in April 1989. An officially-sanctioned mourning period provided an opening for Chinese to express their anxieties about the direction of the country. Officials reacted with a mixture of conciliatory and hardline tactics that revealed a split with the communist party leadership. Ultimately, the hardliners won out, with the country’s paramount leader at the time, Deng Xiaoping, and his allies resolving to use force to suppress the movement. Up to 300,000 troops mobilised under a martial law order implemented on 20 May. On 4 June 1989, the troops were ordered into central Beijing, killing both demonstrators and bystanders in the process. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to thousands.
“So many people have sacrificed their lives to fight for democracy and freedom, so I cannot be silent, and I cannot give up,” Teng said.
For his efforts to defend human rights in China by taking on politically sensitive cases, Teng, who has been abducted three times, moved to the USA in 2014. He continues to pursue human rights law and activism as a visiting scholar at Princeton, Harvard, and New York University.
As the Chinese regime continues its crackdown on scholars, intellectuals, journalists and human rights lawyers, Teng analyzes the way in which the Chinese regime under Xi Jinping has used high-technology totalitarianism to successfully target and suppress dissidents.
Although Teng now lives in the United States, he still feels the weight of censorship and pressure from the Chinese regime. In 2016, the American Bar Association abruptly cancelled the publication of his book, “Darkness Before Dawn”, which details his 11-year career as a rights defender in China.
Despite his setbacks, Teng has co-founded Beijing’s China Against the Death Penalty, and the Open Constitution Initiative, an organisation of lawyers and academics that advocates for the rule of law in China. He also co-founded the China Human Rights Accountability Center from the United States.
Summer Dosch interviewed Teng for Index on Censorship.
Index: What motivated you to specialise in human rights law?
Teng Biao: Before I went to the university, I was a brainwashed high school student, and I didn’t know the meaning of law, human rights, or politics. After a few years of studying in law school at Peking University, I realised that I had been cheated by the Chinese government. I gradually had to develop independent thinking. Once I knew more about the human rights situation in China, I decided to become a scholar. Before I got my PhD, my idea was to focus on academic and intellectual work so that I could use it to promote human rights law in China. Soon after I began to teach at a university in Beijing, I participated in a very influential case, and then I founded a human rights entity. After that, I became a human rights lawyer and dedicated my work to the human rights cause in China.
Index: When did you start receiving threats from the Chinese regime for your work?
Teng: When I started my human rights work, my first case was quite influential, so I was prepared to receive harassment from the government; however I didn’t. Shortly after continuing my human rights work, I received harassment and warnings from the university and the government.
Index: What motivated you to keep teaching, and pursuing human rights law despite the limitations you faced and the threats you received from the Chinese regime?
Teng: I feel as though I have a special responsibility to promote human rights in China as a lawyer and an intellectual. In the early 2000’s, I felt that China was in the process of democratisation, and that there was still so much human rights work to do. It is dangerous, but I thought that I needed to take more risks as an intellectual. Two years after the Tiananmen massacre, I went to the university and I started learning the truth behind it, and I saw myself as survivor of the massacre. So many people have sacrificed their lives to fight for democracy and freedom, so I cannot be silent, and I cannot give up. The feeling of being a survivor of the Tiananmen massacre motivated me to keep going.
Index: What do you think of the current situation in China today?
Teng: After the Tiananmen massacre in 1989, the Chinese Communist Party instituted some economic reforms. In terms of the political system, the reform never happened; therefore it remains a one party system. The fundamental freedoms and human rights of the Chinese people remain very limited. In terms of human rights and press freedom, China has always been one of the worst countries in the world. Before Xi Jinping came to power in late 2012, the crackdown on Chinese society was severe. Although censorship and persecution were there, they were not like what Jinping has been doing for the past six years. After 2013, the human rights situation deteriorated even more. Jinping has turned China’s collective dictatorship into a personal dictatorship.
The Communist party is also establishing what I call high-technology totalitarianism. This kind of high-tech totalitarianism has never happened in human history. It includes DNA collection, facial recognition, artificial intelligence, big data, and a sociocratic system, which have all been used by the Chinese government to strengthen its control over society. Jinping and the Chinese government started a comprehensive crackdown that targeted all the forces that had been fighting for freedom and human rights law, including human rights lawyers, bloggers, scholars, underground churches, and the internet. This crackdown is getting worse, and will continue to get worse in the years to come.
Index: What do you think of Chinese-American relations today? How do they continue to threaten international freedom and intellectual freedom?
Teng: I am quite critical of the American policy towards China. American and other western democracies have adopted an engagement policy. They think that if they permit China to be a part of WTO and international human rights treaties, China will start to move towards democracy, and promote more of an open society; however this has not happened. Human rights activists and dissidents have always called for policy change, and for a link between human rights and business; however the United States has not listened until just recently. Within the last two to three years, I sense that the United States is thinking about a policy change. They have seen more and more evidence that China has become a threat to international free order. Then we also see the trade war between the United States and China, which indicates that there will be more tension between the two countries. The Chinese government has violated human rights and freedom in China, and in doing so has become a threat to global human rights and freedom. So I believe that the threat is from the Chinese government, not from China-United States relations.
Index: How do current Chinese-American relations affect your work as a human rights lawyer today?
Teng: Before 2014, I was in Taicheng publishing my articles and books, and I was also traveling internationally. Because of my human rights activities, I was put under house arrest, kidnapped by the secret police, and tortured. During this time, I wasn’t able to continue my human rights work. Even in the United States, I still feel pressure and interference from the Chinese government. A publishing unit refused to publish my book after I had signed the agreement because they were afraid of the Chinese government. They told me that my book would endanger their programs in China. My graduate talk was also canceled by an ivy league university in the United States.
After I came to the United States, my wife and my children were prevented from leaving China, and were held by the Chinese government as hostages. I also received death threats from anonymous Twitter users, who were obviously working for a Chinese agent. There are many more examples similar to these. Again the threat to my work comes from the Chinese government, not from China-United States relations.
Index: How have intellectuals in China responded to the decline of intellectual freedom in China?
Teng: Most intellectuals, writers, scholars, and journalists are controlled by the Chinese government. No matter what kind of belief or ideology they have, they don’t criticise the Chinese government publically. Only a few intellectuals are brave enough to share their independent thoughts that criticise the current government system. Some of these intellectuals would be seen as dissidents if they went any further. For the past five to six years, intellectual and academic freedom has been decreasing very rapidly. The information control of districts, universities, and publishers became severe. More intellectuals are afraid of being outspoken, so they stay silent, delete their social media, and don’t write critical articles. Only a few dozen intellectuals are still active and courageous enough to be critical.
Index: Do you think there has been a significant emigration of scholars and intellectuals from China?
Teng: I have seen some intellectuals go to the United States in exile, and there will be more. The problem is that it is not easy to live in the United States in exile. Some scholars and human rights activists are in great danger if they continue to live in China. Some of them have been fired, imprisoned, or tortured and therefore have to leave China to apply for political asylum. Most scholars who feel unhappy and pressure from the government, but are not facing immediate danger do not think that it is easy to live in a foreign country. So we haven’t seen hundreds and thousands of Chinese scholars and intellectuals moving outside of the country.
Index: Why did you decide to flee to the United States and what has life been like for you and your family since moving there?
Teng: When I was in China, I was detained and tortured a few times, and my family was targeted. Even after my abduction, disappearance, and torture, I continued my work. In late 2013, many activists of the New Citizens Movement were arrested, and I am one of the initiators of the New Citizens Movement. At that time I was also a visiting scholar at a Chinese university in Hong Kong, so it was quite clear that if I went back to China from Hong Kong, I would be arrested and no longer able to continue my work. I then accepted an invitation from Harvard Law School.
Index: How has your family adapted to life in the United States?
Teng: They are accustomed to American life, but it is always a challenge for foreigners to live in a new country. The language barrier, and the culture difference make life especially difficult. Because of the pressure from the Chinese government, my wife was fired from the company that she had been working for for 17 years. It is not easy for me to get a job because my degree is from China, so I have had to start from zero in the United States; however at least my wife and children are not living in fear. I appreciate the free and safe environment in the United States where I can continue to pursue my human rights activism.
Index: What were you teaching or working on when you were abducted by the secret police?
Teng: The first time I was abducted was in 2008, and the second time was in 2011. I was a lecturer at the China University of Political Science and Law. I was teaching jury’s prudence and constitutional law, but the main reason I was abducted was because of my involvement in several human rights cases, which related to Tibetans, underground churches, and unlawful convictions. I have been involved in many politically sensitive cases. The third time I was abducted was in 2012, and I was only held hostage for one night. I was released before my friends, family, and the media knew about my abduction.
Index: Do you have plans to go back to China in the near future?
Teng: As a human rights lawyer, I really want to work in China. I enjoyed the time I was fighting for human rights law and democracy with my Chinese colleagues. But now, I am unable to return to China without being blocked or arrested by the Chinese government. I predict that government control will only tighten in the coming years, and because of this I will not be able to go back to China. But I really hope that I can go back to either a free China, or as a human rights lawyer to continue my human rights work without being imprisoned for the long-term.
Index: What are your thoughts about the protests against the extradition law being proposed in Hong Kong?
Teng: On June 10 2014, by issuing a ‘white paper’, Beijing had destroyed ‘one country two systems’ which is not only a promise to Hong Kong and UK, but also a part of international commitment. Hong Kong has been an impressive example that a dictatorial regime will not tolerate a special region which has political freedom. The Umbrella Movement was a failed fight for universal suffrage, but the protest against the extradition law seems to be the ‘last fight’, because if this extradition bill is passed, a free Hong Kong will be over soon. It is the shame of the WHOLE WORLD to helplessly see how a free and prosperous city was occupied and killed by a dictatorial regime, and by the appeasement policy adopted by the democracies.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”stretch_row_content”][vc_column][three_column_post title=”Scholars at Risk” full_width_heading=”true” category_id=”31940″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
28 Nov 18 | Academic Freedom, Academic Freedom Reports, News and features, Press Releases
The full report can be read here.
A narrative of safety and risk is hampering freedom of speech on UK university campuses, a new report has found.
‘Uncomfortable but educational‘ — a short report and guide on the laws protecting free speech in universities by freedom of expression campaigners Index on Censorship — calls for more to be done to create an environment in which free speech is promoted as an equal good with other statutory duties. It also identifies Prevent as a key issue.
The report argues that universities should strengthen and simplify codes of practice to clarify their responsibilities and commitment to protecting free speech on campus. It also urges student unions to reaffirm a commitment to freedom of expression in their policies and remove “no-platforming” guidelines that involve outlawing speakers who are not members of groups already proscribed by government.
The report identifies the implementation of Prevent — which places obligations on universities to stop students being drawn into terrorism — as having a pernicious effect on freedom of expression and academic freedom in higher education and calls for an immediate independent review of the policy.
Despite near-daily news stories about attempts to shut down free speech on campus, the report finds that the environment for freedom of expression is poorly understood. Incidents are often misreported, while others — especially levels of self-censorship — are not reported publicly at all. A better understanding of the levels of explicit and implicit censorship on campus, coupled with the development of strategies for the better promotion of freedom of expression and at pre-university level are identified as crucial for ensuring free speech is protected.
The report draws on interviews and research of the sector over the past three years and in particular offers a guide to the legal protections and duties related to freedom of expression. It finds that often duties and rights such as those related to safety are presented as trumping those related to free speech, creating a risk-averse culture in which free speech is seen as a less important right.
“Protecting and promoting freedom of expression should be at the heart of what a university does – not an afterthought,” said Index on Censorship chief executive Jodie Ginsberg. “We want to encourage everyone to consider this as a core value – rather than one that is secondary to other rights and responsibilities.”
For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact Jodie Ginsberg at [email protected] or 020 7963 7260.
