Gan Yang and Liu Xiaofeng on Yenching Academy​

Gan Yang and Liu Xiaofeng, “The Cultural Positioning and Self-Betrayal of Peking University”[1]
 
Introduction and Translation by Matthew Dean
  
Introduction
 
Liu Xiaofeng (b. 1956) and Gan Yang (b. 1952) are China’s foremost interpreters, translators, and champions of Leo Strauss (1899-1973), the German-born American political theorist. Strauss is known for, among other things, insisting on a return to the origins of Western political thinking in order to save political thought from the forces of historical relativism and scientific positivism. A return to the beginnings of things therefore underlies the intellectual and polemical concerns of Liu and Gan. In 2006 they undertook co-editorship of a translation series entitled “Sources of Western Studies” 西学源流, whose titles include Jacob Klein’s Plato’s Trilogy, Karl Löwith’s From Hegel to Nietzsche, and Leibnitz’s Théodicée. This series’ co-authored general introduction “Re-reading the West” 重新阅读西方 has been re-published separately in various outlets as a short manifesto.

Gan is known for seeking the path of modern China in the attempt to “Unify the Three Traditions”, i.e. the Confucian, Maoist, and Dengist traditions. He is also the editor of “Culture: China and the World”, a translation series largely responsible for re-introducing Western thinking into post-Mao China. Liu, more prolific as an author, edits his own series “Hermes: Classici et Commentarii” 西方传统：经典与解释 which, as the title suggests, publishes both translations of classics and commentaries on classic works, such as Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling, Simone Weil’s God in Plato, and William James’ The Varieties of Religious Experience. Liu is worthy of much greater interest in the English-speaking world than he currently receives. For example, he took it upon himself to learn Ancient Greek and Latin and, at the age of nearly 50, produced new Chinese translations of several Platonic dialogues.[2] The work of Gan and Liu taken together has perhaps been the strongest force behind the renewed interest in Western classics since the reforms of the 1980s.
 
This co-authored text is a polemic against the administrative officials of Peking University who in the summer of 2014 began rolling out a plan for the Yenching Academy, a new postgraduate college within Peking University, modeled on the neighboring Schwarzman College at Tsinghua University. “We can only hope our worries are unwarranted,” our authors note, and, after the polemics such as this one, some of the worries presented here did prove unwarranted. But the anxiety behind its harshest criticism remains fully awake in the hearts of many Sinophone intellectuals.
 
There was cause for great worry in mid 2014. A new residential M.A. program in China Studies, fully taught in English, was coming to the heart of campus. This aspect of the initial rollout was immediately seized upon as a contradiction: China Studies MA’s were not required to study Chinese. In fact, it wasn’t clear what requirements these students ought to have: “Currently, besides an ability to speak English, Beida authorities have not yet revealed what qualifications and prerequisites matriculating students should possess.” This residential program was going to be housed in Jingyuan, Peking University’s historic and symbolic center.

Jiang Shigong (b. 1967), a prominent New Left member of the Beida Law Faculty and China’s foremost advocate of the thought of Carl Schmitt (“Hitler’s crown jurist,” 1888-1985), mentioned the Yenching controversy in his lecture on “A Glimpse into the Future of ‘One Country Two Systems.’” After suggesting that Hong Kong has a fundamentally Western standpoint from which it views the Mainland, he says, “You may already know this but the [Yenching] program scared all of us, even though we have the best English teachers, because it was Chinese people using English to teach Americans... They all came from the best schools, like Harvard and Yale, and were recommended personally by the college presidents and also came from pretty good family backgrounds…” Indeed, so bad was the impression given by the rollout that Gan and Liu call these students “international glitterati” and decry the program itself as a humiliating attempt to get Obama’s daughters to come to China for a year.
 
Since this essay was written, the Yenching Plan has become the Yenching Academy, now a two-year, fully funded, residential M.A. program hosting over 200 students in 2020. For international students, only one year in situ is mandatory; the second year may be spent abroad writing the thesis. The Chinese language course is compulsory for international scholars (see here for more details on the program).

The Yenching Academy is formally little different from comparable programs at other institutions. It aspires to the same international community building goals as the Rhodes Scholarship, or the many English-language M.A. programs in continental Europe. Insofar as it has these goals, the Yenching Academy earned a handwritten note of gratitude for hosting First Lady Michelle Obama. (It is this note of April that Gan and Liu likely have in mind when accusing Beida officials of currying favor with the Obamas.) Yet fears that the purpose of this program is to understand China only on the Party’s terms, that it is a soft power push, has led the FBI to inquire into its graduates, and even the Department of Defense to bar attendance for two West Point grads.
 
The essay achieves its sharpest relief in their comments on the significance of speaking one’s mother tongue. “This is not some kind of alarmism: when a civilization with a long historical tradition no longer thinks and writes in its own language, then it is no longer a civilization, and marks the death of that civilization. When a nation’s top university no longer uses its own language and literature to express academic thought, this shows that this nation does not have its own independent and autonomous academic tradition. This shows that this nation is not a cultural great power.”

This polemic does not inveigh against students and teachers, foreign or native. Rather it takes aim at a problem present in academia around the world: the erosion of the power of the faculty and students by a managerial elite who take their bearings by what Harvard presidents say. Much of the essay therefore dwells on the question of Chinese academia itself. What is it and what should it do? Can China be a great power, and realize the China Dream, if its intellectuals (or academic authorities) continue their blind worship of the English language?
 
Favorite Quotes

"From using English to demean the faculty, to using English to demean the students, and finally using English to demean Beida itself, this might describe the trajectory of Beida’s reforms from 2003 to 2014. This irrepressible compulsion to speak English or to self-colonize promotes Beida’s continual self-abnegation, symbolically illustrating that they will trample the rest of Beida underfoot solely for this prestigious 'foreign concession English-speaking academy.' The relation between what is inside and outside of the 'foreign concession' classically symbolizes the condescending tyranny that 'internationalization = English,' chastising the 'native Chinese university.' It is also a classic symbol of self-alienation and self-distortion. It is regrettable that Beida authorities not only welcomed this tyranny in without any reflection, but sought out this domination by all possible means, and did not balk at Beida’s degradation to vassaldom. In the eyes of Beida authorities, English equals internationalization, which means that any English-speaking university will be better than Beida.  And simply because speaking English is equated with scholarship, the one-year M.A. program offered by this English-speaking academy’s is enough!" 

"We have to ask, what sort of thing is Beida’s 'English-language China Studies M.A.'? Every China Studies program in the world at least pretends to study some Chinese. It is only the much vaunted 'English-language China Studies' of Beida that does not need to study Chinese. What’s more astonishing, they simultaneously emphasize this is 'China’s English-language China Studies,' which is not the same as 'Western English-language China Studies.' The program is not just a blind copy of Western China research and Western Sinology. It 'uses English as the language of instruction but is not the same as Western in-China English-language China Studies.' Its goal is 'to construct Chinese cultural agency' and 'rejuvenate the China Dream.' I would like to ask why exactly the resuscitation of the China dream needs English-language China Studies, and not Chinese-language China Studies? Surely it’s not that China can only be taught by means of the English language? No English speaking, no 'Chinese cultural agency'? Or is it a question of which English is capable of creating Chinese cultural agency?"

"Chinese universities must 'put an end to the study abroad movement' to become world class universities. The first field of study they should stop importing from the West, the first field they no longer need to import from the West, is naturally 'China Studies.' If Beida does not have the self-confidence to abandon its reliance on Western imports in the field of 'China Studies,' but unthinkingly continue to believe that they still need yearly, never-ending imports, then, one might ask, what hope is left for Beida to become a world class university? If it seeks to become a first-rate university while nurturing its inferiority complex, Beida will still be only a third-rate university even after a thousand years. A recent popular online post reads, 'Just as some students had given up Hong Kong University in favor of Peking University, some Beida leaders had devoted themselves to turning Peking University into Hong Kong University.' This sums things up in a nutshell. This is why we had no choice but to write this essay, because of our concern that the goal of the Beida reforms is not to make Beida China’s Beida, nor even to make Beida into China’s Harvard, but rather to transform Beida into the 'Hong Kong University' of the north, a third-rate English-language campus of HKU."

Links to other texts on the site

For texts related to the theme of intellectuals, click here


Translation
 
As children of Peking University’s golden age in the 1980s, where we passed several free and easy years, we always believed it was the greatest university in the world. Later on we attended many renowned European and American universities, but we thought they were at best Beida’s[3] equal, and Beida was inferior to none. Peking University is Peking University. It can only be measured according to its own special civilization and culture. To use any outside comparison and quantitative indicators to evaluate Beida can only destroy its pride and soul.
 
 
1. “An English-language Beida?”
 
However, after each of us made our way back to China, we were disappointed to hear that the Beida we once attended did not even rank among third-rate universities. We were especially shocked to discover that those who were the unhappiest with Beida, who believed that Beida was so far gone that it needed major surgery, even shock therapy, were none other than the Peking University administrators themselves. We subsequently discovered that their entire dissatisfaction with the university was focused on one thing: that even today, Peking University is somehow still a podunk university where everyone speaks and writes Chinese! How can this be?! If it is not an English-speaking university, how can it become a “world class university”? From the 2003 hiring reforms[4] to what they are calling the Yenching Academy in 2014, the connecting thread is really the same idea of reform, and they want to get to the same goal: English! English! English!

Only after Beida thoroughly commits to completely transform itself into an English-language university can it truly follow international practices and compete with Singapore and Hong Kong for the title of top university in Asia. (Can you not see that English-speaking Singapore and Hong Kong are ranked by the West as the first and second in Asia respectively? Can you not see that Beida cannot compete with Anglophone Singapore and Hong Kong? Can you not see this is the age of globalization, the age of the English language? So how will this work without switching to English?)
 
Changing Beida into an English-language university is easier said than done! The biggest obstacle is first the existing teaching faculty, since most of them speak only Chinese, not English. Hence, the 2003 reforms focused completely on hiring, with the goal of complete transformation. Through strict hiring, they hoped to quickly turn the Beida faculty into one that speaks and writes in English. Administrators at that time made their cruelty public: “Our students are first-rate. Our faculty is second-rate.” Why were the faculty second-rate? Well naturally because they could not speak or write English, naturally because they were not up to international standards. Because they were so self-servingly boorish 吃相过于难看 and ill-conceived, the 2003 Beida reforms were ultimately booed off the stage.

So the 2014 reforms perhaps learned the lesson of the 2003 experience. They know a direct assault is not as effective as a flanking maneuver, so they are circumventing the rubes by first establishing a prestigious [lit. “crane among chickens” 鹤立鸡群] school within the school. And what is its pride, this prestigious academy which tramples all the little chickens underfoot? One word: English! Not only is it an English-language academy, it is also an English-language residential college! There is still only one keyword in the entire reform: English! Besides using English to replace Chinese, administrators really do not know what the university should be doing. From the depths of Beida’s Chinese heart emerges an English-language residential college, similar to the “foreign concessions” carved out of Shanghai and Tianjin after the Opium Wars. Words fail us in describing the imagination behind this majestic reform! Just as the concessions were carved out back in the day, Beida has finally taken the first step on the path toward becoming an English-speaking university. Reform is hard work!
 
Unfortunately, the repercussions of the 2014 reforms have already surpassed those of 2003, especially the intense backlash from the student body. Why? Because this prestigious school within a school clearly tells the Beida community: Not only is the faculty second rate, but the students are too. Only those privileged students within the “foreign concession” are first-rate. They all come from the world’s so-called most famous universities and chatter away in English, unlike this no-count, podunk university whose students are still speaking Chinese. Inside and outside of the “concession” represent two different worlds, two different values: “inside the concession” English is spoken, which is the international lingua franca, and the international academic language representing “civilization” and “progress”; “outside the concession” Chinese is spoken, which, since it is not an international language and not an academic language, represents “barbarism” and “backwardness.”

To put it simply, “the English-speaking Beida inside the concession” represents the Peking University that conforms to world standards, and has already reached the threshold of a “world class university”. “The Chinese Beida outside of the concession,” however, represents Beida’s antiquated past and must be completely eliminated. It seems that the “responsibility” which the Beida administration has assigned itself will be, with “the English-speaking Beida inside the concession” as a stronghold, to gradually institute reforms that lead to the utter elimination of “the Beida outside the concession”. Only if English totally replaces Chinese, only if the “English-language Beida” totally replaces the “Chinese-language Beida” can Peking University genuinely become a “world class university.” And this is why Beida can promote a one-year M.A. program that no research university gives a hoot about to the highest level in its strategic planning, and repeatedly announce that this one-year M.A. program is not only Beida’s most important action of the new century but is also crucial to Beida’s fate, Beida’s future, and even the possibility of realizing the China dream.
 
How can such a small one-year M.A. program play such a critical role for Beida? How can it ultimately assume such a great historic mission? Beida has not and cannot explain this point, because the ultimate goal of the “concession academy” is to replace “Chinese-speaking Beida” with “English-speaking Beida,” which is something that Beida officials cannot say, but can only do. This is an open secret, both for those who support these reforms and those who oppose them.[5]

For example, in support of Beida authorities, a certain student named Luo, who is graduating this year from Beida’s Department of International relations, posted the following comment online under his real name: “Many Beida people see this issue for what it is, but for fear of hurting people’s feelings, they avoid talking about it. In any case, I am leaving Beida, so I will speak out. Any reform will make some people unhappy. Beida wants to become international, a world class research university, and naturally wants to eliminate scholars unable to use English in their research.”[6]

This supporter singled out Xin Deyong[7] 辛德勇 as an example, believing that while Professor Xin is “widely acknowledged as the conscience of Beida,” nonetheless “Professor Xin’s academic record suggests that it would be difficult for him to converse with international scholars, and he may be sacrificed on the altar of Beida’s reforms.”
 
2. “The Foreign Concession English-Speaking Academy”
 
From using English to demean the faculty, to using English to demean the students, and finally using English to demean Beida itself, this might describe the trajectory of Beida’s reforms from 2003 to 2014. This irrepressible compulsion to speak English or to self-colonize promotes Beida’s continual self-abnegation, symbolically illustrating that they will trample the rest of Beida underfoot solely for this prestigious “foreign concession English-speaking academy”. The relation between what is inside and outside of the “foreign concession” classically symbolizes the condescending tyranny that “internationalization = English,'' chastising the “native Chinese university.”

It is also a classic symbol of self-alienation and self-distortion. It is regrettable that Beida authorities not only welcomed this tyranny in without any reflection, but sought out this domination by all possible means, and did not balk at Beida’s degradation to vassaldom. In the eyes of Beida authorities, English equals internationalization, which means that any English-speaking university will be better than Beida.  And simply because speaking English is equated with scholarship, the one-year M.A. program offered by this English-speaking academy’s is enough! Beida authorities take for granted that because these “foreign concession English academy” students come from famous universities, their achievement level will naturally surpass that of Beida students. These English-language brains, having studied “English-language China Studies” for one year, will naturally achieve levels that exceed those of Chinese-language Beida’s three year M.A. program students, of even Chinese-language Beida’s four-year doctoral program candidates. Their scholarships should be eight to ten times that for the podunk M.A. and Ph.D., and should even be higher than the salary of those podunk Beida lecturers! It goes without saying that the “foreign concession English-language academy” speaks the international language of scholarship.

How could it ever be mentioned in the same breath with the non-international, non-academic Chinese language? Who cares about Chinese-language Beida’s three-year M.A. program? Who even cares about the four-year Ph.D. program? No matter how much you read, it’s all still in Chinese. No matter how much you write, it’s all still in Chinese. It’s not English! Only English is scholarship. Only English is thought. Only English produces elites, or even leaders. Everything not in English must go! From here on out, Peking University’s ultimate ace in the hole is the one-year “English-language China Studies M.A.s” born of the Beida “foreign concession academy”. To use the verbiage of their propaganda in People’s Daily, these “English-language China Studies M.A.s” represent Beida’s eagerness to use “China Studies to construct Chinese cultural agency”, and will later rely on them to realize the China Dream.[8]
 
Currently, besides an ability to speak English, Beida authorities have not yet mentioned what qualifications and prerequisites matriculating students should possess, for example, whether they will have made outstanding achievements or contributions, especially in some public service that advances world peace or corrects global inequalities, or if they will have taken a certain number of courses on China, and attained a certain grade, or if they will have at least read the Chinese classics in English translation and passed an exam. Beida authorities have not thought about these questions, just as they have not been thinking about, and dare not bring up, whether the “foreign concession students” should at least have passed an intro-level Chinese-language exam.

In the minds of Beida officials, how can you bring up the prerequisite of learning Chinese? The very fact that they are coming gives Beida face.  Whether it is Obama’s daughter, Bama-oh’s son, Bababa’s grandson, or O-ho-ho’s son-in-law… if they are willing to come to Beida, then what an honor it is for us! Of course the program length cannot exceed one year. How could we seriously expect them to come study for three years? Who would come? Our Beida, after all, is a podunk university, we are the ones imploring people to come; the important thing is to entertain our guests well. We need an accommodations system. Room and board must be first rate! Beida looks servile in the face of these imaginary “foreign concession students”. While requirements for these students have fallen to rock bottom, the hospitality given to them has risen to the skies. How did Beida sink so low?
 
3. English-language China Studies
 
The inconceivable thing is, after the “foreign concession plan” was met with universal opposition, Beida authorities started going on and on about their “responsibility,” even going on about the “China Dream”. To be honest, if it were not Beida officials spouting such nonsense, then we would not have even bothered with all this. If Beida authorities were to be honest, and admit they are selling pig in a poke, creating a one-year program to make money and network for international and personal connections, then people wouldn’t take it seriously and that would be it. After all, if they want to get Obama’s daughters to come hang out for a year at Beida, or gift these children of the political aristocracy a worthless, one-year MA degree, with an eye toward international networking, that’s no skin off our nose. But when Beida authorities published in People’s Daily that these utter inanities are “the appropriate responsibilities of a first-rate university,” and proclaimed solemnly in bold letters that this was Beida “using China Studies to construct Chinese cultural agency,” and when they were gloating that this “concession English-language academy” was “for the rejuvenation of the China Dream,” we did not know whether to laugh or cry. Aren’t they publicly mocking China?
 
One may well ask, is “the first-rate responsibility of a first-rate university” to run a one-year M.A. program? Is that because it is in English? Or because it focuses on providing a service to  international bigwigs? How can what they say on behalf of the stately Beida be so undignified? Are first-rate universities composed of specialists running crash courses with no academic value? Is a “first-rate responsibility” begging the children of international bigwigs to come participate in crash courses? The most important move of Peking University’s becoming a first-rate university is fawning on the children of international aristocracy? Are they serious  这也能拿得上台面?
 
In fact, what the Beida authorities said to the Chinese people in People’s Daily was extremely dishonest. They should have said that they are hoping to use “English-language China Studies to construct Chinese cultural agency,” to use “an English-language academy” in order to “rejuvenate the China Dream.” The second they tell the truth, their incoherent nonsense will immediately be exposed. What is “Chinese cultural agency”? How can a university that despises the Chinese language and only worships English have any “Chinese cultural agency”? Surely it is not the case that only someone with a complete lack of Chinese cultural agency could cook up the idea of “using English to construct Chinese cultural agency?” Can “Chinese cultural agency” ultimately be constructed on the crash courses of a one-year M.A. program in “English-language China Studies?”

Since those with an M.A. in “English-language China Studies”, who do not know a word of nor can speak a sentence in Chinese, are an international joke already, how could they become “Chinese cultural agents ”中国文化主体? Beida authorities really seem to believe they will recruit 65 children of the international aristocracy every year. So long as they go through one year of an intensive “English-language China Studies” program, in which there is no need to study Chinese, then these international glitterati 纨绔子弟 will be transformed into “crash Chinese culture agents, «and in fact the world’s most elite “English-language Chinese culture agents.” To hear them tell it, these “one-year crash English-language China Studies Masters” will become “talented people who genuinely understand and love China,” “talented people who can make China’s voice known on the world stage.” Is Beida not afraid of becoming the laughing stock of the world?
 
We have to ask, what sort of thing is Beida’s “English-language China Studies M.A.”? Every China Studies program in the world at least pretends to study some Chinese. It is only the much vaunted “English-language China Studies” of Beida that does not need to study Chinese. What’s more astonishing, they simultaneously emphasize this is “China’s English-language China Studies”, which is not the same as “Western English-language China Studies”.

The program is not just a blind copy of Western China research and Western Sinology. It “uses English as the language of instruction but is not the same as Western in-China English-language China Studies.” Its goal is “to construct Chinese cultural agency” and “rejuvenate the China Dream.” I would like to ask why exactly the resuscitation of the China dream needs English-language China Studies, and not Chinese-language China Studies? Surely it’s not that China can only be taught by means of the English language? No English speaking, no “Chinese cultural agency”? Or is it a question of which English is capable of creating Chinese cultural agency?
 
Honestly, we don’t get it. We can only suggest in all seriousness that Beida’s “concession academy” student recruitment advertisements clearly indicate this is Chinese English China Studies[9] in order to be fair to the students. They should also be especially clear that this is not the same as England’s or America’s China Studies, which would be English-English China Studies / American-English China Studies. But even if they did this, we would still really like to understand--what is the difference between Beida’s “Chinese English-language China Studies” and “Western English-language China Studies”? Is it because Beida’s “English-language China Studies” insists on Chinese agency 中国主体, the Chinese perspective, the Chinese standpoint, the Chinese tradition, and Chinese knowledge?

Are we missing something? And we would especially like to understand--what are the criteria by which Beida authorities, in their global hiring efforts, make sure they are getting “Chinese English-language China Studies scholars” and not “Western English-language China Studies scholars”? Is it that once these “Western English-language China Studies scholars” get hired by Beida’s foreign concession academy, they magically become  “native Chinese English-language China Studies scholars”, which gives them the wherewithal to “construct Chinese cultural agency”? Or is it that there are people who have been hanging around for years, but failed to get tenure and become “Western English-language China Studies scholars”, and wind up obliged to turn to Beida’s foreign concession academy, effecting a glorious about-face that transforms them into “native Chinese English-language China Studies scholars”?

If that is the case, is it then true that those “Western English-language China Studies scholars” who don’t get tenure in the West, as long as they are able to write English, can all immediately become “native Chinese English-language China Studies scholars”? Again we ask, what are the standards of a “Chinese English-language China Studies scholar”? How do they differ from those of a “Western English-language China Studies scholar”?
 
To tell the truth, Beida’s “English-language China Studies” is just a desire to transplant wholesale Western China research and Sinology to Beida. Their so-called global call for applications to be a “Chinese English-language China Studies scholar” is just a call for “Western English-language China scholars” who are products of China research and Sinology in the West. What else could it be? Originally, this call for applications was common practice. For many years, every department in China’s elite 985 Universities put out calls for foreign applicants. The scholars who responded had no problem integrating into the Chinese academic community, so long as they used Chinese to teach and write. But Beida’s current “English-language China Studies” global call for  applications is not at all common practice, because the goal of establishing a “foreign concession English-language academy” is for these foreign applicants to come and only use English to teach and write, in order to establish an authentic “foreign concession scholarship”.

This “foreign concession scholarship” belongs solely to the English-language academic community and has nothing to do with Chinese scholarship, but secretly wishes to place itself above and to control Chinese scholarship. The fundamental problem here is that Beida authorities, in their hearts, look down on the Chinese language, they look down on Chinese scholarship, and they look down on the Chinese scholarly world. What they want is just for Beida to clone an English-language academic unit which will be the same as in the West and thereby become a “vassal state” to Western scholarship.[10] This kind of “foreign concession scholarship” will have a terrible and far-reaching effect. That is, it will warn Chinese scholars, especially young scholars, to give up Chinese academic writing, and to publish solely in English, just like Singapore and Hong Kong.
 
Beida has always had a large number of outstanding Chinese China Studies scholars, the strongest of which have formed the greatest “China Studies” teaching and research community in the world. But Beida authorities do not think these scholars are worthy. They fundamentally do not believe Chinese scholarship is scholarship, so they decided to start over again and create “Chinese English-language China Studies,” and claim to want to make 30 cross-appointments of “Chinese English-language China scholars” from within Beida, as well as recruiting between 20 and 40 “Chinese English-language China Studies scholars” from around the globe.

We predict that Beida will not find 30 “Chinese English-language China Studies scholars” on its campus because its outstanding Chinese scholars will not stand being labeled “Chinese English-language China Studies scholars”. Likewise we predict that the so-called “Chinese English-language China Studies scholars” who Beida hopes to hire from abroad will in reality be nothing other than Western China scholars and sinologists. In the end, Beida authorities have only one “China Studies” in mind, namely Western English-language China research and Sinology.
 
4. The Cultural Positioning of Chinese Beida
 
In the hearts of those Beida authorities who are in awe of[11] the English language, believing that English is the only international language, the only academic language, this sort of “self-abasement of Chinese” and “exaltation of English” has almost become a religious belief. (We have heard that Beida’s new hiring system requires each candidate to have eight foreign evaluators, so that everyone knows that only by publishing in English can you stay at Beida.) This sort of pervasive cancer of linguistic self-abasement and this kind of cultural inferiority have in fact already become like incurable diseases in the development of the cultural creativity of Chinese academic thinking, and have become the biggest obstacle to “realizing the China Dream.”

Beida authorities seem unaware that the fostering of Chinese academic culture’s creativity requires use of the Chinese language for innovation. They seem not to even know that Chinese cultural agency is of course first and foremost a question of the agency of the Chinese language. So it is pure fantasy to want to “use English-language China Studies to construct Chinese cultural agency”! More importantly, Beida authorities do not seem to know, what is Peking University? What is not Peking University? They have never thought about what Beida would be if it became an English-speaking university.
 
In our view, in the course of China’s university reforms to the present day, we have reflected seriously on the proper positioning of Chinese universities, and particularly of Beida, in today’s globalized reality. Everyone understands the importance of internationalization, but if you make university internationalization equivalent to a production line whose product is English, and elevate English to a dominant position far above Chinese in the humanities and social sciences, it is bound to have catastrophic consequences for Chinese universities and Chinese academic culture. Here we need to stress the fundamental difference between the humanities and social sciences and science and engineering.  From the point of view of science and engineering, if Peking University were to switch completely to English, it might not be a concern, because the basic language of science and engineering is not an historical cultural language, but rather a mathematical language, for which English and Chinese are merely auxiliary tools. But for the humanities and social sciences, English and Chinese represent vastly different histories and cultures.

Therefore from the point of view of the humanities and social sciences, if Peking University becomes a completely English-language university, this is not only suicide for Beida, but it is also suicide for Chinese civilization. This is not some kind of alarmism: when a civilization with a long historical tradition no longer thinks and writes in its own language, then it is no longer a civilization, and marks the death of that civilization. When a nation’s top university no longer uses its own language and literature to express academic thought, this shows that this nation does not have its own independent and autonomous academic tradition. This shows that this nation is not a cultural great power. 
 
Emphasizing the importance of thinking and writing in one’s mother tongue, emphasizing the independence and autonomy of Chinese scholarship, in no way means an arrogant rejection of English or any other foreign language and culture.[12] On the contrary, we not only cherish the irreplaceable value of Chinese as a language of history and culture, but likewise highly respect the value of Ancient Greek, Latin, as well as modern English, German, French, as languages of different histories and cultures. The main focus of our own academic work for the last thirty years has been on the West, from Ancient Greece and Rome to modern English, American, and European thought and scholarship, and we have done our utmost to transform the essence of Western civilization into a resource for Chinese scholarship.[13]

But we have always stressed that the research of Chinese scholars into Western Studies is an intrinsic part of the Chinese intellectual community, whose objective is the development of China’s culture of thought and scholarship. The civilizational mission of Chinese scholarship, and especially that of the humanities and social sciences, with their international perspective, is to integrate the resources of Chinese and Western thought through diverse avenues of thinking and writing in Chinese, on the basis of which it will develop Chinese-language thought and scholarship to the greatest extent possible.  The mission is absolutely not to parrot scholarship without value simply because it can be called “publishing in English,” and even less is its mission to confine itself to the limited world of Western China Studies or Sinology.

Promoting publishing in English above all else clearly reflects the fact that Beida authorities do not at all understand Chinese scholarship’s genuine international outlook and cultural mission, nor do they have the slightest understanding of the place of Chinese scholarship in the context of the genuine goals and arduous efforts to accumulate knowledge of both Western scholarship and Chinese thought. In reality, today’s “English-language supremacy” has nothing to do with respect for or research into English-language intellectual academic tradition, and is merely the manufacture of an officialized, stylized use of English. The fact that the sharpest and most violent criticisms of Beida’s English-language academy comes from many of its best professors in the English department is testimony to that.
 
To put it simply, if Chinese scholars, including those who work on China and on the West, all must publish in English, this means that in the future China will not have its own Chinese-language culture of thought and scholarship, which naturally means that China will have no cultural development, to say nothing of cultural soft power. In an age of the internationalization of the university  and the globalization of the use of the English language, this danger is very real and very present--and the hidden or disguised attempt of university to induce scholars to publish only in English (for example, requiring that faculty evaluations must have at least eight foreign evaluators, or only recognizing English-language publications as a “first-rate” achievements) objectively hinders or even destroys the vitality of the Chinese-language culture of thought and scholarship.
 
For just this reason, it must be emphasized that the rise of China necessarily means promoting the rights of the Chinese language, not strengthening English hegemony. The renaissance of Chinese civilization must be also the renaissance of the Chinese language, and not merely “Yes/Ok/Wow”—the nonsense words we see in ads and on tee shirts.[14] To put it simply, the China Dream 中国梦 must be a Chinese dream 中文之梦, not an English dream!

No matter whether university presidents with science and engineering studies backgrounds are able to understand this point, if they truly identify with the China Dream, they must remain vigilant and consciously resist the comprehensive use of the English language in Chinese universities. If they truly wish for the renaissance of Chinese civilization, they should see that in degrading the academic status of the Chinese language at Chinese universities, and denying the legitimacy of Chinese scholarship, they are participating in something which is tantamount to creating the Chinese university without the Chinese language, which is the same as a China without Chineseness—and one leads to the other. 

If Peking University takes the lead in switching completely to English and eliminating Chinese, China’s other universities will follow suit, which means Chinese universities would be heading toward a “comprehensive elimination of Chineseness”, something far deadlier and subversive than Taiwan and Hong Kong independence movements, since it is the same as the self-subversion and self-colonization of Chinese civilization. In that case, what rebirth of Chinese civilization could we still be talking about? Therefore, the question about the direction of Beida’s comprehensive imposition of English is in no way a question of whether or not to “internationalize”, rather it is primarily a battle of life and death between “strengthening China” and “eliminating China”.
 
We can only hope that the Beida authorities are merely anxious to “internationalize” and are not so muddle-headed as to advocate that “the rejuvenation of the China Dream” must be done in English, or that “the construction of Chinese cultural agency” requires “eliminating the Chinese language”. We can only hope that they understand one common-sense principle: a civilization’s foundation and soul is its language and literature; the Chinese language is the lifeblood of Chinese culture. Chinese civilization’s agency primarily exists in the “agency of the Chinese language”.

Without the Chinese language, what is left of Chinese civilization? What is left of a Chinese identity? What “Chinese cultural agency” is left to “construct”? “China’s China studies” or “Beida’s China studies” must of course use the Chinese language. What more proof do we still need? Peking University serves as the temple of all Chinese culture and education. So it goes without saying that it must be a “Chinese-language Beida”. If Beida relinquishes the Chinese language for an “English-language Beida”, then is Peking University still Peking University?
 
The reason Beida is Beida is that she is a symbol. Since her founding as the Imperial University, she has represented the spiritual inheritance of Chinese cultural tradition. She has represented Chinese civilization’s reliance on the modern university system’s efforts to self-rejuvenate. Beida is destined to assume the responsibility for bridging Chinese civilization’s past with its future by using the Chinese language to teach and the Chinese language to write! Beida is not, nor should it ever be, a “vassal state” to Western English-language universities. Beida’s responsibility to Chinese civilization is first and foremost a responsibility toward the Chinese language. Beida’s pride comes primarily from its pride in the Chinese language. Beida’s brilliance is grounded in the brilliance of the spoken and written language of Chinese.

At Peking University, the Chinese language must be privileged above the English language! Without the Chinese language, what could Beida still be proud of? Without the Chinese language, what brilliance could Beida be capable of? If English is raised above Chinese to a dominant position at Beida, then it will be the self-betrayal of Beida’s civilizational nature!  If they are pushing Beida toward a total embrace of the English language, trying to transform Beida into an English-language university, then that would be nothing short of the fundamental castration of Chinese civilization!
 
5. The “Yenching Program” Should Be Abandoned
 
The idea of Beida’s Yenching Academy was a mistake from the start. As we all know, this program was forced on them by the Schwarzman Program next door at Tsinghua, and what saddens us as alumni is that Beida has shamelessly copied its neighbor: Tsinghua has students study for one year, so Beida has students study for one year, Tsinghua has six study tracks, so Beida has six study tracks.[15] Beida authorities clearly lack any mature reflection on the program, let alone any talent for logic (e.g. what even is “Chinese-language English China Studies”?) This program should not be rammed through 勉强上马 so Beida authorities can save face, but should rather be completely abandoned for the good of Beida.
 
We have to ask: what is the ultimate reason Beida wants a Yenching English-language academy? After receiving many questions from inside and outside the Beida community, Beida authorities in different venues have repeated the same story, which explains Beida’s biggest reason for setting up an English-language academy: “Last fall in her opening year address, which truly moved us, Drew Gilpin Faust, the president of Harvard, welcomed the new students by saying, ‘You have come from 110 countries around the world. How many students are in this class? Only a little more than 1600 people, but there is such a rich diversity of international and regional backgrounds.’ We thought, when can we overtake them? This is something we must aspire to.” What they say sounds so bold, so full of a sense of mission. Beida overtaking Harvard! What spirit! But what does this story ultimately illustrate?
 
If it is the hope that Beida’s student body should have a rich diversity of international and regional backgrounds, then we wholeheartedly approve. Let us imagine together this kind of vision for Beida: in 2020 or  2030 Beida recruits 3000 students hailing from 200 countries, at least half of whom do not speak Chinese as their mother tongue. We would be very happy to see this vision realized. The only question is, when Beida accomplishes this, what will be the school’s standard language? Chinese or English? We believe Beida authorities should honestly answer this question for the Beida community and for all Chinese people: in their view, what will serve as the standard language in their vision of the future of Beida? Chinese or English? Or, in the view of Beida authorities, what language should the Chinese student of the future speak? Chinese or English?
 
Likewise, Beida authorities say, “We are realizing the China Dream. If we don’t have one or two universities on equal footing with other universities, then this dream will not be fulfilled.” We wholeheartedly approve this sentiment. But we still hope Beida authorities can honestly answer this question: does a Chinese university’s achievement of “equal footing with other institutions” mean its transformation into an English-language university? Is it that China’s Chinese-language universities cannot and should not be “be on equal footing with other universities?”
 
We truly hope that Beida officials can frankly explain their inner thoughts on these issues. If their answer to the above two questions is that the future Beida’s standard language should be English because it is only when we have an English-language university that we can be “on equal footing with other universities,” then Beida setting up an English-language academy makes perfect sense. They are merely preparing for Beida’s eventual comprehensive transformation into an English-speaking university.
 
But, if the answer of the Beida authorities is the same as our answer (Beida’s standard language will always be Chinese and its goal is to gain “equal footing with other universities” by means of its identity as a Chinese university), then we must say, as a symbolic first step toward fulfilling Beida’s vision, the language of the Yenching Academy should naturally be Chinese. Why would it be English? It is best to begin in caution 谨始以正开端. Since this academy is meant to pave the way for the internationalization and diversification of Beida students, and since in the future, no matter how international or diverse Beida students are, Chinese will be the standard language for all Beida students, then isn’t the unexpected use of English, rather than Chinese, for the new academy that is meant to serve as Beida’s first step toward internationalization totally incomprehensible? What is the ultimate goal in launching this new academy?
 
Everybody knows of course that although Harvard students hail from 110 countries and speak dozens of languages, they are required by Harvard to listen, speak, read, and write in the mother tongue of the American people, which is Harvard’s responsibility to America! If someday Harvard should abandon English and instead require students to listen, speak, read, and write in Chinese, then they would be betraying America and throwing in their lot with China![16] What did Beida authorities ultimately learn from Harvard? What should they learn? Surely they are not saying that, because Harvard speaks English, Beida should also speak English? Harvard has a responsibility to America, but what about Beida? Should Beida have a responsibility to America or to China?
 
We cannot help but worry that in their minds, or at least in their subconscious, there lies some belief that only by being an English-language university can Beida “be on equal footing with others”, and thus that the future standard language at Beida should be English. Therefore as Beida makes its most important strategic development decision of the 21st century, it should begin by setting up the Yenching English-language academy as a pilot program. But should these be the ideals and aspirations of a president of Beida? If so, what hope is there left for China’s Peking University?

We can only hope our worries are unwarranted. We can only hope Beida authorities hold the same position as we do that a Beida president’s responsibility is naturally the responsibility to a “Chinese-language Beida”, and also holds the same position as we do that if anybody is not responsible to a “Chinese-language Beida”, but rather embraces a responsibility to an “English-language Beida”, then they do not have the qualifications to serve as a Beida president. We hope that Beida authorities believe as firmly as we do that Beida’s responsibility to China, Beida’s responsibility to itself, must be to “gain an equal footing with others” by means of the Chinese people’s Chinese-language universities!

Obviously Beida’s official language will always be Chinese, no matter the future extent of its internationalization. Every student matriculating to Beida, no matter where they come from, no matter what language they speak, they must all hear, speak, read, and write Beida’s mother tongue, the mother tongue of the Chinese people—the Chinese language!

But if this were so, would Beida still have any cause to set up an English-language Yenching Academy?
 
6. Must “China Studies” Still Depend on Western Imports?
 
In fact, we can already foresee, in the face of the backlash both on and off campus, Beida’s “foreign concession academy plan” will beat a retreat until it exists in name only. The first step of the retreat is the withdrawal of the “foreign concession” from Jingyuan [the oldest building cluster representing the spiritual center of Beida]. 90% of Beida students strongly oppose the occupation of Jingyuan, putting a huge pressure on school authorities. You cannot violate public opinion, so the retreat from Jingyuan is a matter of course. The second step of this retreat is the reduction of the “foreign concession students’” extravagant scholarship awards, in order to avoid an attack on these extremely unfair educational practices.

The third step of this retreat is a likely unavoidable increase in the length of the program, which is important for Beida’s academic dignity. The fourth step of the retreat will be an admission by Beida authorities to Beida professors that a one-year M.A. program is not in any meaningful way an academic plan, and even less is it a serious academic development plan. How could a one-year M.A. program hold any academic weight? The fifth step of the retreat is that, going forward, Beida authorities can never again say this unacademic M.A. program is “Beida’s biggest strategic move of the century,” which is utterly ridiculous.
 
“If names are not right then speech does not accord with things; if speech is not in accord with things, then affairs cannot be successful”.[17] After taking these five steps back, the so-called “Yenching plan” will really exist in name only, and will turn into a ”might have been” 鸡肋 Beida authorities will talk about longingly among themselves. Even if they save face by moving it to Shaoyuan[18] or some other place and setting it up anyway, it will only be one of Beida’s unacademic “continuing education programs”. But even if this were to happen, we still must insist that Beida’s original public statement, saying they wanted to hire 20 to 40 so-called “China’s English-language China Studies Scholars” by offering them Harvard professor salaries, is inappropriate and totally unacceptable. To selectively hire dozens of the highest paid professors for an unacademic one-year M.A. program is not only a massive waste of resources, but also a mockery of scholarship and a public insult to current Beida professors.
 
But the still more fundamental question is about the academic field of what is called “China Studies”. Does China need to rely on Western imports? Surely you do not mean that we are not completely within our rights to demand that anyone engaging in China Studies throughout the world should first meet Chinese language standards and should be able to use Chinese to communicate with other China scholars? Otherwise, what qualifications do they have to be a “China scholar”? Is it not self-corruption and self-humiliation for Beida not to insist on Chinese as a basic requirement for China research, but rather piddle around with “English-language China Studies”? Is it not an outrageous trampling on basic academic standards and norms to globally source “China scholars” and require English rather than Chinese as a basic qualification?

If their minds have not been bewitched by “worship of the English language”, how can there exist the ridiculous unspoken rule that China research must use English before it can be reckoned “first-rate”? How can they assume that one must go to the West to hire “China scholars”? How can “Western China scholars” be so superior to Chinese scholars such that paying such high salaries makes any sense? Are we to believe that “China scholars” should not first be recruited and hired in China? According to our understanding, the Chinese culture and history Ph.Ds. produced by Beida and other 985 universities are absolutely outstanding. Especially strong in fundamentals, they far outstrip the same Ph.Ds. produced by Western universities. Why are they not giving preference to China’s own hard-working talent? If the reason for all of this is not “the hegemony of the English language”, then what is it?
 
Unlike in science and engineering, in what we call the field of “China Studies”, there are differences of degree but not of kind, and there is absolutely no need for Chinese scholarship to surpass “first-rate” scholarship elsewhere in the world.  In the field of China Studies, the equal exchanges between Western and Chinese scholars have been frequent and ongoing. Beida’s behavior forces a system of academic equality into a system of academic inequality by way of unequal salaries. Without basis they imagine Western scholarship to be superior to Chinese scholarship, which reveals an extreme ignorance about modern academia.

In fact, in the field of China Studies, in the absence of special circumstances, Beida and the 985 universities have no need to hire Western China scholars and Sinologists. Western academia holds no particular advantage to speak of in this respect, unless you believe English is an advantage. In the field of China Studies, Professor Xin Deyong’s well-known remark, (“For every Harvard professor, you can find an equal at Beida.”[19]) is not conceited nonsense, but is the consensus of many very learned and insightful Chinese scholars. To be frank, apart from a few truly outstanding Western scholars, the special trait of the majority of scholars in the field of China Studies is their skill in English. Many of them merely repeat or translate results achieved by Chinese scholars. And as everyone knows, in the field Modern China Studies, the work of Western scholars is full of all kinds of cultural and political ideological prejudices.

Those Western articles and books that fill page after page of mechanical imitations of fashionable theoretical terms are usually the worst, and much of it is nothing short of garbage. Neologisms and new theories are for the most part used to cover up weaknesses in one’s academic training, a facade to hide a weak grasp of fundamentals and empty thinking. Only those without any academic training could possibly fall for such nonsense.
 
Chinese universities must “put an end to the study abroad movement”[20] to become world class universities. The first field of study they should stop importing from the West, the first field they no longer need to import from the West, is naturally “China Studies”. If Beida does not have the self-confidence to abandon its reliance on Western imports in the field of “China Studies”, but unthinkingly continue to believe that they still need yearly, never-ending imports, then, one might ask, what hope is left for Beida to become a world class university? If it seeks to become a first-rate university while nurturing its inferiority complex, Beida will still be only a third-rate university even after a thousand years.

A recent popular online post reads, “Just as some students had given up Hong Kong University in favor of Peking University, some Beida leaders had devoted themselves to turning Peking University into Hong Kong University.” This sums things up in a nutshell. This is why we had no choice but to write this essay, because of our concern that the goal of the Beida reforms is not to make Beida China’s Beida, nor even to make Beida into China’s Harvard, but rather to transform Beida into the “Hong Kong University” of the north, a third-rate English-language campus of HKU.
 
7. The “China Scholar” Age
 
In 2003, during the Beida reforms, we published our volume on “Ninety Years of the Chinese University”.[21] Ten years have passed, and 2014 is the anniversary of Hu Shih’s publication of “Opposing Studying Abroad.” The question we raised then is not only more relevant now, it is more urgent. Let us continue to hail the approaching “Age of the Chinese Scholar” with the hope and anticipation of ten years ago:
 
“A great university must have its spirit, but this spirit must not be based in nothing, rather it must be rooted in a politico-cultural community that strongly demands its spiritual autonomy. The spiritual origin of China’s modern university is no doubt based on Hu Shih’s moving and heartfelt account of that era’s students studying outside of China: ‘Although they belong to one of the most ancient civilizations, indeed the leader of East Asian civilization, not long ago they suddenly were forced to learn from others.[22] Is there anything more shameful than to become a follower nation? That students must go abroad to learn is the nation’s shame!’[23]

The true spirit and life of the modern Chinese university hangs upon our attitude toward this great shame. This is a rightful and self-conscious expectation for a great nation capable of autonomy and spiritual rebirth. A person who agrees with this must take his stand with the great Chinese language and literature, and must await the future age of the “Chinese scholar”. This outstanding younger generation of “Chinese scholars” must possess this self confidence: that our days of dependency, our long foreign apprenticeship is coming to an end.” (Gan Yang, “Ninety Years of the Chinese University”)
 
July 23rd, 2014

Notes


[1] 甘阳 and 刘小枫, "北大的文明定位与自我背叛," was written on July 23, 2014 and published the following day on The 21st Century Business Herald app 21世纪经济报道, The Oriental Post app 东方早报 and in The Paper 澎湃新闻. This essay is the first in Gan’s collection Five Essays on Beida 北大五论, published in 2014 by Joint Publishing 三联书店.

[2] Translator's note:  See the excellent first English publication of a collection of Liu’s essays Sino-Theology and the Philosophy of History, Liu Xiaofeng, trans. Leopold Leeb, (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2015) 15.

[3] Translator's note: “Beida” is shorthand for Peking University, abbreviating its full Chinese name “Beijing Daxue”.

[4] Translator's note: Gan collects his reflections on the 2003 reforms in Five Essays on Beida 北大五论. One essay has been translated into English and can be found here. 

[5] Translator's note: 正所谓司马昭之心路人皆知, or “every peasant knows what is in the heart of Sima Zhao.”

[6] Translator's note: Luo Mian’s 罗勉  position can be found here.

[7] Translator's note: The Yenching controversy cannot be discussed without mentioning the name Xin Deyong 辛德勇 who is professor at the Peking University Center for Research on Ancient Chinese History specializing in historical linguistics and historical Chinese geography. Professor Xin’s outrage over the Yenching plan has been chronicled here, here, and here.  After fruitless attempts to express his discontent by official means, he created a Weibo account in order to publish several lengthy polemics, the first of which is here.

[8] Translator's note: See this interview with Peking University Managing Vice President Liu Wei 刘伟 for the rhetoric Gan and Liu criticize.

[9] Translator's note: This and the following two italicized phrases are in English, as well as the word “tenure”. I modify the original “Chinese Studies”, putting “China Studies” in its stead for clarity, even though obfuscation is the point here.

[10] Authors’ note: cf. Gan Yang, “The Chinese University and Beida Reform”, “90 Years of the Chinese University,” in Civilization, Nation, University. 参甘阳，“华人大学理念与北大改革”，“华人大学理念九十年”， 收入 《文明．国家．大学》

[11] Translator's note: “Avert their gaze from” 抬不起头.

[12] Translator's note: Cf. Gan’s remarks on Kafka’s “four impossibilities of writing.”

[13] Translator's note: Gan and Liu are co-editors of “Sources of Western Studies” 西学源流, a series whose mission is to renew the reading of the West. Gan and Liu both have their own projects as well. Liu edits the prolific series “Classici et Commentarii”, which translates and introduces Western classics and commentaries. Gan edits the series “China: Culture and the World” which explores the interaction between Chinese and Western civilization.

[14] Translator's note: Quoted words are in English. Popular English, the English of social media, and otherwise the sort of media that seeps into foreign cultures, is often meaningless, decontextualized filler words of the sort Gan and Liu proffer here. There is no shortage of nonsense English used in businesses, printed on clothing, etc., which represents English for the sake of English in the same way that nonsense Chinese tattoos in the West can represent Chinese for the sake of Chinese.

[15] Translator's note: The six areas of study are Philosophy and Religion, History and Archaeology, Literature and Culture, Economics and Management, Law and Society, and Public Policy and International Relations

[16] Translator's note: 投靠，from the phrase 卖身投靠.

[17] Translator's note: 名不正则言不顺，言不顺则事不成 (Analects of Confucius 13.3), Legge translation.

[18] Translator's note: Shaoyuan 勺园 is a building complex in Peking University where international conferences are often held and where many international students are housed.

[19] Translator's note: Likely a reference to the following comment Xin made at a consultative meeting with the Beida community on the Yenching plan. “I believe that here we all dare to compete [lit. cross swords] with each and every Harvard professor” 我相信哈佛大学有一个教授算一个教授我们都敢和他一对一交锋. A record of this comment, its context, and other comments by others present can be found here.

[20] Translator's note: Possibly a simultaneous reference to both Gan’s own essay published in Shu Zhai 书摘 on May 1, 2012 “Thirty Years After the Study Abroad Movement” 留学运动三十年后 and the Hu Shih text “Against Studying Abroad” 非留学篇 quoted below.

[21] Translator's note: Despite the plural first person pronoun, only Gan, not Liu, seems to have written 华人大学理念九十年.

[22] Translator's note: In Chinese Feng Shui, facing north puts one in second place, while facing south puts one in first.

[23] Translator's note: https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/20800313.