 |
||
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The Yale Alumni Magazine is owned and operated by Yale Alumni Publications, Inc., a nonprofit corporation independent of Yale University. The content of the magazine and its website is the responsibility of the editors and does not necessarily reflect the views of Yale or its officers. |
|
Singapore Spinoff Editor Kathrin Day Lassila has urged alumni to respond to the university’s proposed relationship with the National University of Singapore (NUS). Let me summarize my understanding of the debate, and then add what I hope will be an additional consideration. Critics of the NUS partnership warn of potential damage to academic freedom. They predict that robust inquiry and freewheeling debate will collide with the restrictions on speech and assembly that narrowly circumscribe the rights of residents in Singapore. In addition, affiliation with Yale will enhance the prestige of this authoritarian regime, and Yale’s reputation will be held hostage to the regime’s caprice. Defenders of the arrangement, among them President Richard Levin and other senior administrators, declare themselves satisfied that free expression will be adequately protected. Beyond that, the sort of cooperation envisioned in the Yale—NUS agreement affirms the university’s commitment to international engagement, a commitment that will always entail risks. Whatever the merits of the discussion, both sides would agree that, once the partnership is in place, it will take courage and exceptionally good judgment to supervise the problematic transactions that will undoubtedly follow. That is the basis of my own concern. While I can support President Levin’s proposal in principle, my reservations are more practical. How will the Yale administration react at critical moments of stress? When Yale students and faculty members find themselves charged with violating Singapore’s defamation laws—often termed the strictest in the world—decisions will be needed that will require wisdom at the highest university levels along with a fierce determination to protect academic freedom from assault. Unfortunately, in dealing with the protection of academic freedom, the current Yale administration has quite recently demonstrated neither good judgment nor a deep commitment to fundamental academic values. Recall, in case any of us has forgotten, that just over a year ago, Mr. John Donatich, editor of the Yale University Press, deleted a sequence of illustrations from Dr. Jytte Klausen’s book, The Cartoons That Shook the World. That decision—which was surely taken with the assent and presumably under the direction of senior administrators—was appropriately condemned across the scholarly community. As I wrote at the time in a letter to Mr. Donatich, to which he has not yet responded, his censorship subordinated the requirements of truth-seeking and truth-telling to the hypothetical behavior of an angry mob. In short, the Press and its overseers chose to abandon the central principles of the university, and I infer that they did so with the support of the President and other administrators. (I am reduced to inference since I have also never heard from President Levin, to whom I sent a copy of my letter.) The defense of academic freedom is easy when it is not endangered. Unfortunately, America’s university administrators have repeatedly shown that they are all too ready to cave in when actual political or financial threats present themselves. This is the lesson we have learned from the history of faculty blacklisting and loyalty oaths in universities across the country, a history to which Yale’s censorship of the Danish cartoons adds a sad chapter. It may be that the administrators of some universities possess the stamina and proven moral courage that will be needed to withstand the attacks on freedom of inquiry, speech, and assembly that collaboration with Singapore’s government will inevitably provoke. Yale’s administrators manifestly do not.
In regard to the proposed establishment of the Singapore spinoff, I’m solidly opposed to the idea. Rather than anything to do with Singapore itself, or the caliber of the National University of Singapore, my staunch stance stems from my belief that the Yale name should be reserved exclusively for that unique, highly respected educational institution, known for its elite faculty, sky-high academic standards, and widely diverse student body, which is located in New Haven, Connecticut. Put another way, under any circumstances would Steve Jobs allow any Apple products to be marketed in conjunction with any other company name?
Each time I read about Yale’s proposed joint venture in Singapore, I grow more concerned. Two aspects of this initiative and its promotion strike me as most troubling. The first is Yale’s disingenuous defense of the oxymoron of a liberal arts college within the territory and under the control of an authoritarian state notorious for its intolerance of dissent. The second is Yale’s self-satisfied defense of “Yale Light,” an overseas expansion free of cost or risk. The two rationalizations are mutually inconsistent. If Yale management is genuinely committed to leading the internationalization of education, why not dissolve the Yale College limit on foreign students?
I have to conclude this idea makes about as much sense as shipping our manufacturing base to China. When America has finally given away the crème de la crème, the intellectual property within our finest universities, so that foreign nations can likely outcompete us with their superior population numbers, we’ll be shaking our heads wondering whose brilliant idea this spinoff was.
As a Yale alumn (Ph.D. 1995) and a university administrator and professor interested in global issues, I applaud Yale’s decision to open a branch campus in Singapore, the dynamic city-state where NYU (where I work) operates two degree-granting campuses for law and film production. I think the article would have benefited from a more detailed discussion of the changing landscape of higher education in Asia. The map of “branch campuses in Asia” fails to include Temple University’s successful campus in Tokyo, Japan (founded 29 years ago and an exemplary branch campus of an American university in Asia), Monash University in Malaysia (founded in 1998), and other such institutions. The map printed in the Yale Alumni Magazine also places Xi’an Jiatong Liverpool University (XJTL) incorrectly in Xi’an, instead of Suzhou, and thus about 400 miles West of where the campus of this British-Chinese branch campus is actually located. This error is akin to placing the Sorbonne on a map at the location of Hamburg, Germany, or locating Yale University in Cleveland, OH. Yale’s endeavor in Singapore is to be commended, and I hope that Yale and its magazine editors, proof-readers, designers and researchers will learn about the great successes and correct location of branch campuses in Asia, and allow the Yale community to benefit from an in-depth understanding of these experiences. Higher education may be a competitive field but it is ultimately a pursuit in the search for the betterment of humankind. A correct and detailed understanding of other models, rather than a myopic focus on a few American universities alone, will prove beneficial to all. Professor Baer is correct. We regret the error.—Eds.
Reading Mark Branch’s interesting and informative article about plans for Yale and the National University of Singapore to collaborate in establishing a new liberal arts college, I could not help but reflect on whether a similar undertaking might be feasible elsewhere, specifically in the Near East. U.S. interests in that region are longstanding, extensive, and seem certain to expand in future years. There are “American universities” in the region, one in Beirut and the other in Cairo. Both have made significant contributions in educating regional leaders—there were more holders of degrees from the American University in Beirut among delegates to the 1945 conference that established the United Nations than from any other university. In an era of globalization and rapidly expanding world trade an associating with Yale could bring great benefits to both American and regional students, enhancing appreciation for differing cultures and traditions.
As a member of the Class of 1970, a significant portion of my “liberal” education at Yale was in the streets of New Haven, protesting an awful war and supporting President Brewster, who had the moral courage to speak the uncomfortable truth about the inability of certain black activists to get a fair trial in the city. Frankly, I am shocked that Yale would even consider entering into an agreement where, according to your recent article, “public demonstrations are out, and criticism of the government outside the classroom is not advisable.” I can’t imagine Yale agreeing to rules that would have silenced both us and President Brester.
Yale’s venture in Singapore is altruistic and intellectually exciting, but I fear Yale is deluding itself in thinking that professors and students will be permitted academic freedom of expression. The reference in “Singapore spinoff” to the government of Singapore’s “use of criminal libel laws to silence its critics” significantly understates the issue—publications as respected at the Asian Wall Street Journal, the International Herald Tribune, The Economist, Time and Bloomberg news have all been forced to pay substantial libel settlements in Singapore, amid statements that they had no choice because Singaporean politicians always win libel cases in their home courts against outsiders (nytimes.com/2010/04/04/opinion/04pubed.html). Does Yale truly have persuasive evidence that Singapore permits professors and students to criticize the government—against such a backdrop? It appears far more likely that Yale is participating in the creation of an academic Potemkin Village that will be used to give a pretense of free expression. Moreover, the article does not discuss how the admissions process will function, especially what steps will be taken to ensure the politically connected are not favored in the process. I would much rather see Yale put forth additional efforts towards improving the education systems in impoverished urban and rural areas of the United States.
Excellent story on the proposed Yale-NUS college in Singapore. You say that nine American and European (and Australian) universities have opened full scale campuses in Asia, of which three have already closed. I would have liked to have heard why they closed and perhaps what lessons we need to learn.
President Levin’s naïve assertion that “faculty publications in the scholarly literature are similarly not censored” does not accord with academic reality in Singapore. The government’s Controller of Undesirable Publications banned Christopher Tremewan’s academic book The Political Economy of Social Control in Singapore in the 1990s even though the work is probably the best available scholarly introduction to the island state’s political system. The National University of Singapore likewise sacked American economist Christopher Lingle and U.S.-educated psychologist Chee Soon Juan for publicly criticizing the People’s Action Party regime. Democracy-advocate Chee has since become close to the Singaporean Nelson Mandela because of his many terms in prison.
What exciting news about the new Yale-NUS campus in Singapore! Kingman Brewster would no doubt be speechless. It’s reassuring to learn that President Levin found the trial of Alan Shadrake “troubling”. Certainly, Patrick Henry would have benefited from knowing that had he published his opinion in an academic journal rather than railing polemically in the House of Burgesses, King George, no doubt as enlightened as our dear leader, would have found nothing offensive in his words. At some point in the future, when the well-dressed, bespectacled man from the Singapore secret police asks ever so softly that going forward all academic research of a politically sensitive nature be published in Latin, his request will be seen as reasonable given the continued assurance of academic freedom at Yale-NUS. Likewise, Yale-NUS will not waste a lot of time issuing a mea culpa when some unfortunate faculty member has to suffer the consequence of seeing his paper in Latin translated by a third party into English and published in a foreign journal for all to read. Clearly the university is responsible for ensuring that academic research is available only for academics to read. What we must keep in mind is the huge benefits of associating Yale with the up-and-coming political elite of the autocratic East. Yale will be seasoned by importing some of the courses that will be developed there. Imagine, “The Illusions of Liberty”, “The Economic Benefits of One Party Rule” and “Devil Worship in Western Religions” may all one day be required courses for Yale freshman. But all the costs and benefits pale compared to the opportunity to plant the Yale brand throughout the East. Onward, ever onward, I say! Next stop Burma!
It’s about time that Yale did something to break out of its coccoon in New Haven. If anybody read the recent article in the Economist pointing out a danger of the Ivy League universities becoming like General Motors unless they learned to adapt to the changing times, they wouldn’t ask the silly question of what is in it for Yale. Looking at Yale from this corner of the world, it looks like an oversized prep school, oblivious of what’s going on in the rest of the world.
Excellent coverage of Yale’s plans for a partnership with the National University of Singapore. It sounds like a fine program. In view of the slow declining status of the United States and its influence in world affairs relative to the new economic powerhouses such as China, India and to a lesser extent, Brazil and Russia, it seems prudent for the U.S. and its citizens to have a far better understanding on the peoples and cultures of Asia. Generally, I think we as a people are woefully uninformed about the rest of the world. In the twenty-first century, the U.S. will have to learn to share global power with others in order to continue to be a leader in democratic governance and as the world’s policeman. Although we as Americans may not want to admit it, the balance of power in the world has shifted since the end of the Cold War. Therefore, the Yale in Singapore experiment should be a way to begin the process of new mutual cultural understanding, which can take place by student exchanges which the new liberal arts college will provide. Despite some comments of caution about perceived lack of political and civil rights freedoms in that country, we should not lose sight of the fact that Singapore can leard from Yale’s liberal arts philosophy and teaching. Cross-cultural understanding flows both ways. I hope this expeiment succeeds!
I support (almost wholeheartedly) the Yale-NUS project and believe the faculty and administration people who worked to develop the project and to explain it to the rest of us have done a superb job. The project strikes me as excellent for all of the reasons included in the September prospectus, plus two perhaps obvious points: 1.) The quality of Singapore as a largely English-language trading-post and city-state at the nexus of India, Southeast Asia, and China uniquely positions Singapore for its aspiration to be an innovative and important center for Asian education. Singapore’s disciplined, well-educated and highly motivated population is a marvelous asset. It seems to me, therefore, that the Yale-NUS project has a better-than-usual chance of success; and Yale’s globalization drive and its international reputation most probably will benefit a great deal from it. 2.) Singapore has been closely watched for decades by China’s liberalizing elements, most notably Deng Xiaoping, who considered Singapore a model of economic development under firm political control. A successful Yale project in Singapore, therefore, will likely benefit Yale’s already good reputation for educational leadership in China, where Yale has made appropriately major investments and ought to have a bright future of quietly guiding China towards responsible global citizenship. My only reservations about the project are the opportunity costs for Yale-at-New-Haven from significant administration and faculty time, attention, and emotional commitment that will have to be directed to Yale-NUS. The Yale brand must somehow be spread globally without essential dilution at home. How to do that? Maybe alumni, some of whom are already well-branded by Yale, could help. The Yale Corporation wisely has alumni members, and Yale pays a good deal of attention to its alumni. The results seem to be good for both Yale and its alumni. The formative Yale-NUS might benefit from some Yale alumni involvement. They all know Yale; some know Singapore; some know management and teaching, some have already well-defined global outlooks. It should be possible for Yale to put them to good use in the NUS project.
I am one of the very many Yalies who have traveled to and through Singapore and done business there. In my case, it was over many years. I write to encourage the project proposed for Singapore. The cultural and particularly the civil liberties differences there are representative of the rest of Asia—so it will be a good thing, not a bad, for Yale to experience those differences and try to deal with them—a good thing for Asia, also for Yale. Personal experience with what some scholars call Sinic culture—the U.S. press and politicians are pleased to label it “crony capitalism”—is a useful thing for a Yale scholar to gain. The first time a Yalie gets a “we must consult the committee” reply, in Korea or Japan or certainly China, will be far less frustrating this way. President Reagan famously thought President Nakasone’s “yes” meant “yes”, and he was angry when it turned into a “maybe”, and Nakasone was confused by the anger—Yale-NUS experience might have helped both men greatly. So I encourage Yale to soldier ahead, with Singapore. I was “shocked, shocked” too, the first time I was there, by my taxi driver’s fearful reaction when I tried to exit on the street-side of his cab—“canings”, he said. I know of the corporal punishment for spitting, and for dropping chewing gum—I’ve read William Gibson’s famous essay on the place, “Disneyland with the Death Penalty”, and I recommend it. But Yale taught me, as an impressionable young 1960s undergraduate from California, that all ideas need challenge. Robert Dahl taught me that even “democracy” did. Coming from the West Coast, I knew “preppies” and “ivy” and “mixers” and other new ideas would be different, but “democracy” I’d always taken for granted. So that Yale does not take democracy for granted, either, I encourage you to go to Singapore. Asia does it different, as it does civil liberties and government and family life and most things. As Asia is to be our global future, we must learn about it; deal with it; consider it not “better” or “worse” than we are but simply “different;” and appreciate it. Good luck to Yale in the adventure, then. Have patience with those “committee decisions.”
|
Related Singapore Spinoff Alumni comments on Yale’s proposal for a new college in Singapore From the Editor Q&A: Rick Levin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
©1992–2012, Yale Alumni Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. Yale Alumni Magazine, P.O. Box 1905, New Haven, CT 06509-1905, USA. yam@yale.edu |
||