Does academia have a choice when it comes to censorship?

Cambridge University Press, which publishes China Quarterly, agreed recently to block 300 of its “sensitive” articles in the Chinese market.  A CUP official deemed the move “pragmatic,” as the press faced further action if it did not comply with Beijing’s request. But others saw a win for China’s interest in deploying economic clout to silence certain scholarship (think the Tiananmen Square protests). 

When word got out, academics rushed to remind the world’s oldest publishing house, an arm of one of the world’s oldest continuously operating universities, of the perils of ceding to censorship. CUP, which noted “the recent increases in requests of this nature,” unblocked the articles this week. China’s government has not yet responded.

The dust-up involved a small number of articles. But the outcry was rooted in something much larger: increasing pressure from President Xi Jinping to shut down critics and influence the market of ideas at home and abroad. As Chinese students have flocked to Western universities, for example, chapters of the Beijing-linked Chinese Students and Scholars Association have engaged in what some say are campaigns of harassment and censorship on issues that run counter to Beijing’s agenda. 

Those pressures will continue to intensify. But as one Australian professor told the Financial Times, “you have to stand up for your principles and if that hurts your economic bottom line, then so be it.”

Now, to our five stories of the day.