SIDEBAR
»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«
China Quarterly
Aug 30th, 2017 by Gao

Ian Johnson: Cambridge University Press Removes Academic Articles on Chinese Site / 迫于审查压力,剑桥大学出版社在华删除敏感内容 (New York Times)

One of the world’s oldest and most respected publishing houses, Cambridge University Press, has bowed to pressure from Beijing and removed sensitive content on its site in China.

Echo Huang: Forced to comply or shut down, Cambridge University Press’s China Quarterly removes 300 articles in China (Quartz)
Cambridge University Press statement regarding content in The China Quarterly (Cambridge University Press)

We can confirm that we received an instruction from a Chinese import agency to block individual articles from The China Quarterly within China. We complied with this initial request to remove individual articles, to ensure that other academic and educational materials we publish remain available to researchers and educators in this market.
We are aware that other publishers have had entire collections of content blocked in China until they have enabled the import agencies to block access to individual articles. We do not, and will not, proactively censor our content and will only consider blocking individual items (when requested to do so) when the wider availability of content is at risk.

Alex Linder: Cambridge University Press bows to Chinese censors, removes 300 ‚politically sensitive‘ articles (Shanghaiist)

On Friday, the CUP said that more than 300 articles had been scrubbed from the China Quarterly’s Chinese website following a request from Chinese censors, which threatened to have its site shut down. Apparently, the articles had been chosen for deletion not through a careful reading and examination of the text, but by quick searches for certain naughty words.

Liste der entfernten Artikel: www.cambridge.org/… (PDF, Cambridge University Press)
Tim Pringle: Message from the editor, The China Quarterly (PDF, Cambridge University Press)

The China Quarterly wishes to express its deep concern and disappointment that over 300 articles
and reviews published in the journal have been censored by a Chinese import agency. We note too
that this restriction of academic freedom is not an isolated move but an extension of policies that
have narrowed the space for public engagement and discussion across Chinese society.

Tim Pringle: China’s bid to block my journal’s articles is a new attack on academic freedom (Guardian)

Cambridge University Press was asked to suppress articles in China Quarterly. It has now resisted, but it is a worrying development

The China Quarterly follow-up statement (Cambridge University Press)

Following a clear order from its Chinese importer, Cambridge University Press reluctantly took the decision to block, within China, 315 articles in The China Quarterly. This decision was taken as a temporary measure pending discussion with the academic leadership of the University of Cambridge, and pending a scheduled meeting with the Chinese importer in Beijing.
The academic leadership of the University has now reviewed this action in advance of the meeting in China later this week. Academic freedom is the overriding principle on which the University of Cambridge is based. Therefore, while this temporary decision was taken in order to protect short-term access in China to the vast majority of the Press’s journal articles, the University’s academic leadership and the Press have agreed to reinstate the blocked content, with immediate effect, so as to uphold the principle of academic freedom on which the University’s work is founded.

Cambridge University Press battles censorship in China (Economist)

This is not the only recent case. Censors have demanded the removal of about 100 articles in the Journal of Asian Studies, also published by CUP. The Communist Party used to allow scholars a modest latitude in their fields of research, permitting, for example, access to foreign academic publications that would be banned from general circulation. But in March the customs authorities tightened rules on importing books. Chinese academics complain that risk-averse librarians will not now order even innocuous scholarly works for fear of offending the customs service.

Cambridge University Press Refuses to Comply With Second Chinese Takedown Request (Radio Free Asia)

Chinese censors have made another request to a top academic journal published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) for the removal of online content from a website hosted in China, the Association for Asian Studies said in a statement.
CUP has refused the request from the State Administration of Press and Publications, Radio, Film and Television (SAPPRFT), which requested the removal of some 100 articles from the website of the Journal of Asian Studies.
The Association for Asian Studies (AAS) said the request was similar to one made by Chinese authorities to CUP, prompting the publishing house to take down some 300 articles from the China website of the China Quarterly academic journal last week.

China Quarterly debate a matter of principle (Global Times)

As the readership of the China Quarterly is limited, there will be little impact over the CUP withdrawing some articles. The Western media, which must have other things to pay attention to, seems more sensitive than some relevant Chinese authorities.
China has a number of laws and regulations concerning cyber security. The China Quarterly is published overseas. There is no overlap between the two sides. The CUP can enjoy academic freedom under British law. But overseas media reports that it set up a server in China hoping to explore the Chinese market, which has to abide by the Chinese law. As long as the Chinese request was made in accordance with the law, there is no reason to be critical.
China has blocked some information on foreign websites that it deems harmful to Chinese society. This is for the sake of China’s security and is within the scope of China’s sovereignty. China is also trying to strike a balance between opening itself up and preventing harmful external information from penetrating into Chinese society, to realize steady and sustainable progress.
Western institutions have the freedom to choose. If they don’t like the Chinese way, they can stop engaging with us. If they think China’s Internet market is so important that they can’t miss out, they need to respect Chinese law and adapt to the Chinese way. Now it seems that some Western institutions would like to make adjustments, while some forces are unhappy about it.

AFP: At Beijing book fair, publishers admit to self-censorship to keep texts on Chinese market (South China Morning Post)

Tiananmen, Tibet and Taiwan are off limits for companies wanting to sell their books in China, publisher says

James A. Millward: Open Letter to Cambridge University Press about its censorship of the China Quarterly (Medium)

Cambridge University Press’s decision to censor the journal China Quarterly as it is viewed online in China is a craven, shameful and destructive concession to the PRC’s growing censorship regime. It is also needless.

Christopher Balding: Petition Cambridge University Press Not to Censor China Articles (Change.org)

As academics and China focused academics, we are disturbed by the request by the Chinese government for Cambridge University Press to censor articles from the China Quarterly. As academics, we believe in the free and open exchange of ideas and information on all topics not just those we agree with. It is disturbing to academics and universities world wide that China is attempting to export its censorship on topics that do not fit its preferred narrative.
We call upon Cambridge University Press to refuse the censorship request not just for the China Quarterly but on any other topics, journals or publication that have been requested by the Chinese government.
If Cambridge University Press acquiesces to the demands of the Chinese government, we as academics and universities reserve the right to pursue other actions including boycotts of Cambridge University Press and related journals.

Maev Kennedy, Tom Phillips: Cambridge University Press backs down over China censorship (Guardian)

Publisher will reinstate articles to which it blocked online access in China in the face of international protests by academics

Simon Denyer: In reversal, Cambridge University Press restores articles after China censorship row (Washington Post)

Cambridge University Press reversed course Monday after facing a major backlash from academics over its decision to bow to Chinese government demands to censor an important academic journal.

Joseph Hincks: A Top Publisher Bowed to China’s Censors. Then it Bowed to Outraged Academics (Time)

Margaret Lewis, Andrew J. Nathan, Pamela Kyle Crossley, Edward Friedman, Yifu Dong, Joseph W. Esherick: Should Publications Compromise to Remain in China? (China File)

Freedom of expression may have won this battle against state censorship, but if state interference continues what compromises is it permissable for academic institutions and publications to make to stay inside China?

Jonathan Sullivan: Censorship and China Studies (China Policy Institute)

CUP’s decision to accede to the demands is a misguided, if understandable, economic decision that does harm to the Press’ reputation and integrity (whether there is any integrity in the business of academic publishing is another story).

In diesem Zusammenhang siehe auch:
中华人民共和国网络安全法(全国人民代表大会)
Inoffizielle Übersetzung ins Englische: 2016 Cybersecurity Law (China Law Translate)

Article 1: This law is formulated so as to ensure network security, to safeguard cyberspace sovereignty, national security and the societal public interest, to protect the lawful rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, and to promote the healthy development of economic and social informatization.
Article 2: This law applies with respect to the construction, operation, maintenance and usage of networks, as well as network security supervision and management within the mainland territory of the People’s Republic of China.

People’s Republic of China Cybersecurity Law: A Preliminary Overview for Western Companies (National Law Review)

The PRC Cybersecurity Law maintains the trend from elective regimes toward mandatory cybersecurity standards and requirements. As seen in the EU, with the recently adopted General Data Protection Regulation framework, and in the US, with proposed federal regulations of financial institutions to address the risk of “cyber contagion,” global actors are flexing their regulatory and national security powers to address the threat of cyber-attacks in an increasingly interconnected world.

Bildungswesen in Xinjiang
Jun 6th, 2017 by Gao

Die chinesische Regierung hat seit einigen Jahren Absolvent_innen der sogenannten „zweisprachigen“ Mittelschulen systematisch privilegiert. (Das sind Mittelschulen, deren Zweisprachigkeit darin besteht, dass die Muttersprache der Schüler_innen nicht Chinesisch, die Unterrichtssprache jedoch ausschließlich Chinesisch ist.)

Adrian Zenz: Problematic Privilege in Xinjiang (Diplomat)

On April 12, China’s Ministry of Education announced that the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), the restive Muslim province in China’s far west, would no longer provide added points to university entrance exam applicants from bilingual educational tracks. Bilingual education was established in 2004 with the aim to promote Chinese language education among the region’s ethnic minorities, especially the Uyghurs. In the bilingual system, the role of the minority language is typically restricted to that of a single language subject, creating a highly immersive Chinese language environment.

2016年新疆高考各批次录取分数线正式公布(新疆维吾尔自治区教育厅 / Xinjiang Uyƣur Aptonom Rayonluⱪ maarip nazariti)

6月26日,自治区招生办公布了2016年新疆普通高考各批次最低投档控制分数线。

第二代民族政策探讨(中国民族宗教网)

第二代民族政策是清华大学国情研究中心主任胡鞍钢与胡联合,以及北京大学社会学系教授马戎提出来的民族政策思路,倡导推行淡化族群意识和56个民族的观念,强化中华民族的身份意识和身份认同,推进中华民族一体化和国家认同的政策。第二代民族政策的指导思想是效仿美国的民族大熔炉模式,不容许任何一个族群生活在一块属于自己的历史疆域内。

James Leibold: Ethnic Policy in China: Is Reform Inevitable? Policy Studies 68 (2013) (PDF, East-West Centre)

There are … signs that interethnic conflict may be growing as free-market forces and increased interethnic communication and mobility intensifies ethnic-based competition… Amid this perception of crisis, Chinese academics, policymakers, and other thought-leaders are engaged in unprecedented debate over the future direction of their country’s ethnic policies… A “melting pot” model is increasingly being accepted as better for de-emphasizing ethnic consciousness, improving ethnic relations and solidifying national unity in the long run… Barry Sautman argues that [these] proposals to “curb minority rights” “emanate from a small number of Chinese academics” yet “reflect a prominent strand of thinking about ethnic policies”.

Ma Rong: The development of minority education and the practice of bilingual education in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. (PDF, Case Western Reserve University)

SIDEBAR
»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«
»  Host:Blogsport   »  Code:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa