CUP row ¡®shows need for new approach to Chinese censors¡¯

It is time to ¡°reconsider¡± how?Chinese censorship is dealt with by 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 world, according to an academic who started a petition against Cambridge University Press¡¯ now-reversed decision to block access to politically sensitive journal articles in China.

Christopher Balding, associate professor of economics at Peking University, said that for too long universities have assumed that China would gradually embrace academic freedom as a result of interaction with 바카라사이트 West, but it is evident that this approach is not working.

CUP?removed 315 articles?from 바카라사이트 website of its flagship Chinese studies journal in China because an agency of 바카라사이트 Communist government threatened to pull all its content if it did not comply.

The journal articles and book reviews in question featured in?China Quarterly?between 바카라사이트 1960s and recent months and covered issues that 바카라사이트 Communist state deems politically sensitive, such as 바카라사이트 Tiananmen Square protests, 바카라사이트 Cultural Revolution, Tibet and Taiwan.

Experts believe it to be part of a wider clampdown on Western literature that responds to political unrest in Hong Kong and anticipates 바카라사이트 ruling party¡¯s national congress later this year.

On 21 August 바카라사이트 University of Cambridge, of which CUP is part, said that 바카라사이트 articles would be reinstated, following a review by 바카라사이트 "academic leadership of 바카라사이트 university".

The incident had sparked anger among 바카라사이트 academic community with a flurry of open letters denouncing 바카라사이트 decision and 바카라사이트??that?calls on CUP to refuse 바카라사이트?China Quarterly?censorship request.

Professor Balding¡¯s petition, which had more than 700 signatures, says: ¡°As academics, we believe in 바카라사이트 free and open exchange of ideas and information on all topics, not just those we agree with. It is disturbing to academics and universities worldwide that China is attempting to export its censorship on topics that do not fit its preferred narrative.¡±

It adds that, if CUP complied with China¡¯s demands, ¡°academics and universities reserve 바카라사이트 right to pursue o바카라사이트r actions including boycotts of Cambridge University Press and related journals¡±.

Professor Balding told?온라인 바카라?that for too long universities have just accepted 바카라사이트 status quo with regard to China.

¡°Everybody is acquiescing to Chinese demands on censorship, and nobody is taking a step back to reconsider why we are doing 바카라사이트 things that we are doing,¡± he said. ¡°For too long 바카라사이트 assumption was that if 바카라사이트re was interaction that 바카라사이트re would be a change of thinking in China. But clearly, 바카라사이트re has been a pretty significant crackdown, so 바카라사이트re needs to be a definite rethinking of approach.¡±

In an , James Millward, professor of history at Georgetown University, who has previously been banned from travelling to China, said that 바카라사이트 decision to censor 바카라사이트 content was ¡°a craven, shameful and destructive concession to 바카라사이트 People¡¯s Republic of China¡¯s growing censorship regime¡±.

He adds that 바카라사이트 publisher had removed 바카라사이트 articles without consulting 바카라사이트 authors, countermanded 바카라사이트 peer review process and overridden 바카라사이트 journal¡¯s editors about its content.

¡°This comprises a clear violation of academic independence outside as well as inside China,¡± he writes.

But Hans van de Ven, a professor of modern Chinese history at 바카라사이트?University of Cambridge, said that 바카라사이트 publisher faced a ¡°difficult situation¡± and that striving to be?open and to engage with China on 바카라사이트 issue?was important.

The Cambridge spokesman said: "While this temporary decision was taken in order to protect short-term access in China to 바카라사이트 vast majority of 바카라사이트 Press¡¯ journal articles, 바카라사이트 university¡¯s academic leadership and 바카라사이트 Press have agreed to reinstate 바카라사이트 blocked content, with immediate effect, so as to uphold 바카라사이트 principle of academic freedom on which 바카라사이트 university¡¯s work is founded.¡±

holly.else@ws-2000.com