Thought police
A confidential report warns that Australian academics are at risk of harassment, harm and intimidation from foreign governments and corporations.
“Universities should be, of all places, the place to talk about human rights and politics and to have difficult conversations. Universities should not be bowing to pressure from foreign governments.”
Australian universities and the academics working within them are increasingly at risk of interference and harm from foreign governments and corporations, according to a confidential briefing paper assessing threats to academic freedoms.
The document, marked “sensitive and confidential”, notes that “foreign actors and their proxies have become increasingly assertive in seeking to discipline universities, academic staff and students who act, speak or write outside the bounds of what the foreign actor considers to be acceptable”.
In extreme cases, the report says, “individual academics risk being subject to direct threats and intimidation within the University setting, suffering harm or incarceration if they travel to those jurisdictions or being excluded from the jurisdiction”.
The draft discussion paper, prepared for the University of Melbourne, was released to The Saturday Paper under freedom of information laws. Most of its pages are blacked out for privacy and “national security” reasons.
The report states that the “risks of foreign interference come from a very wide range of jurisdictions, and they are not limited to foreign state actors”. It continues: “A range of other influential non-state actors such as corporations, political parties, nongovernment organisations, think tanks and pressure groups, either acting as proxies for governments or government interests, or in their own interest, all have the capacity to interfere with academic freedom.”
The report says that the threat to academic freedom is made “more complex because of the power of these actors to punish universities: financially, by withdrawing students, constraining, or making teaching and research collaborations difficult, and through causing reputational damage to the institution as well as individual academics both in Australia and in the foreign jurisdiction”.
It says that risks and specific threats come from governments and proxies “intolerant of critical scrutiny” or who “demand academic work conform to their notions of acceptable topics and analysis”.
The report says that while considerable attention has been directed at China and India, “they are by no means the only foreign actors with capacity and willingness to harm universities, academics and students for failing to toe the line”.
The report was prepared before the mass resignation of fellows from the Australia India Institute, based at the University of Melbourne. It was written in 2020 but has not been released until now.
Dr Priya Chacko, one of the institute fellows who resigned last year, says that in preceding years there was little understanding of how the institute could respond to external pressures. “I don’t think anyone at that point had thought about how to respond to any of this,” she says. “I think it was just a new phenomenon … There was no support. There was no infrastructure. No one knew how to respond to it. That was the impression that I got.”
The Saturday Paper has seen emails demonstrating academic censorship at the institute. One email concerns an article on Mahatma Gandhi, co-authored by a deputy associate dean at the university. The article was being considered for placement with an external outlet with “a good circulation”. The head of strategic communications at the institute tells the author it “reads really well”.
But then, she writes: “Unfortunately, since we had the discussion about Ghandi
[sic] at the staff meeting there has been some controversy surrounding the issue of ‘caste’ and the AII and Lisa felt we should stay away from the topic a little longer.”
Lisa is Lisa Singh, a former Labor senator and the institute’s chief executive. The institute did not respond to questions about the incident.
The issues of academic freedom and interference from the Indian government become more pressing as education has been named “a major point of collaboration” between Australia and India in “An India Economic Strategy to 2035”, a report to the Australian government by Peter Varghese.
In the context of cuts to Australian universities and a declining Chinese market, Chacko says, India presents “a potentially big market” for Australian universities trying to diversify their reliance on international students. Additionally, she says, India has changed its policies to encourage more collaboration and allow foreign universities to operate in India.
At the same time, India’s record on academic freedom has declined. Chacko says that academic freedom is under assault in India, with government critics being uninvited from events, a right-wing student group instigating violence on campuses and government control over senior management positions. She says the Australian government and universities “need to be aware of this and safeguard academic freedom in any agreements they sign”.
Chacko says the possibility of losing visa access to India “weighs heavily” on academics and that scholars have “changed research topics because they are unlikely to get research visas for critical work”.
Scholars also face the possibility of deportation after being issued visas. Last year, two British academics, Filippo Osella and Lindsay Bremner, were denied entry to India and immediately deported despite holding valid visas. Australian writer Kathryn Hummel was similarly deported in 2018. Bremner described her deportation on Facebook as part of “growing trend by countries hostile to academics they think might be bad publicity”.
For academics who are also Indian citizens, Chacko says, the risks include travelling to India and “not being allowed to leave or being detained by Indian authorities”.
Chacko says Australian universities need “robust policies” that show “awareness of what is happening in India and how this can impact India-focused academics”.
Elaine Pearson, Asia director at
Human Rights Watch, says it’s not unusual for governments to complain about events that portray them unfavourably but that universities need to be principled in their response. “Universities should be, of all places, the place to talk about human rights and politics and to have difficult conversations. Universities should not be bowing to pressure from foreign governments.”
Pearson said her organisation is concerned about the crackdown on Indian civil society, including the prosecution of human rights activists, journalists, academics and students, using counterterrorism and sedition laws. “It’s really worrying to see this trend towards authoritarianism in India and I think governments like Australia really need to do more to hold the Modi government to account by raising these issues in a more direct, robust way.”
Gerald Roche, a senior lecturer at La Trobe University, says there’s been a “shift in the online mood for Asian studies scholars in the last couple of years”, which he says is “tied to the rising assertiveness of countries like India and China”.
Roche, who works on Tibet and
China, has been the subject of trolling and harassment himself and has seen others who work on India receive similar attacks online. He says it has “always been a tough gig to be an Asia specialist in Australia” and now, in addition to “structural precarity”, Asiafocused scholars face the risk of harassment for their work and commentary.
Roche says being a scholar is “not just producing knowledge about people” but also “advocating on their behalf in the face of injustice”. However, in doing advocacy work Asia scholars can “increasingly encounter these forms of backlash”.
Roche says there aren’t enough structural efforts to deal with these challenges. “A university has expectations of us to not just produce research but also engage the public about our research,” he says. “It would just be good to see some recognition that it’s a part of our job and that simply by doing our jobs we are exposed to this kind of thing.”
Roche says that while there is some recognition of risks China scholars face, there is little understanding of the intimidation that those working on India are met with. “There’s understanding among the general public that there’s tension in relation to China, whereas if you bring that same issue up in relation to India, the general public doesn’t really know. Most senior management at universities aren’t really aware of this issue at all. It’s just not on the radar,” he says.
“I put that down to geopolitical drivers. Although there’s currently an effort to mend Australia’s relationship with China, the last few years have generally been very bad for relations between the two countries. We are, at the same time, building an alliance with India partly as a way to have alternatives in the region to China. People are not going to beat the drum for academic freedom in India in the same way that they do about China. India is our favoured democratic partner in Asia and it doesn’t really matter how many civil rights activists they lock up, how many academics they lock up. As long as that geopolitical situation remains where we need them as an ally, then it’s not going to become a public issue.”
In a statement, a spokesperson for the University of Melbourne said academic freedom was a core value of the university. “The university’s systems and processes are robust but, in an increasingly complex global environment, the university is committed to continuous improvement to safeguard our community, values, research and people. We will continue to refine and advance our mechanisms to ensure our international collaborations are successful and aligned with legislative requirements, while continuing to advocate for the value of international partnerships and engagement.”