In a recent Heterodox Academy webinar, I spoke with Sarah McLaughlin, Senior Scholar of Global Expression at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), about her new book, Authoritarians in the Academy: How the Internationalization of Higher Education and Borderless Censorship Threaten Free Speech (Johns Hopkins University Press). Our conversation spanned the wide-ranging influence of foreign governments—and increasingly, technology companies—on U.S. campuses to explore how it shapes what is said and studied by students and faculty.

Although McLaughlin had been working on issues related to foreign censorship in the academy for some time, the book project was solidified for her in 2022 after an incident at George Washington University ahead of the Beijing Winter Olympics. Students had anonymously posted artwork on campus by a Chinese Australian artist that drew attention to human rights abuses. Some student groups demanded the pieces be removed as “offensive.” University leadership complied.

“And not only did George Washington's president at the time agree to act and agree to censor the posters, so they were ripped down,” McLaughlin explained. “He said, ‘We will investigate and unmask who posted this artwork that's criticizing the Chinese government.’”

This case exemplifies a core irony on today’s college campuses: international students who come to study at U.S. campuses – where free speech is touted as a fundamental pillar of university culture – now become fearful that the campus administration won’t back them up when pitted against authoritarian speech customs. The consequences can be life-altering if word of their dissent follows them home.

Another key front of authoritarian influence I discussed with McLaughlin in our conversation involves the rise of "satellite" campuses in countries with restrictive speech laws. Universities have marketed these projects as exporting U.S. academic freedom and free expression to new frontiers while also creating research and financial opportunities.

But when push comes to shove on speech, who is really in charge? Do U.S. norms or foreign laws win out?

McLaughlin pointed to controversies in Qatar as an example. At Northwestern University’s Qatar campus, an event featuring a Lebanese band whose lead singer was gay was scrapped. Northwestern cited security concerns and moved the event to the U.S. But according to McLaughlin, the state-linked Qatar Foundation, which manages American university campuses in the country, claimed the event was really stopped because it did not adhere to Qatari laws and customs. So, is it Northwestern policy that determines what happens on the Qatar campus? Is it Qatari law? A similar clash arose at Georgetown’s Qatar campus, where a debate on female depictions of God violated blasphemy law.

“Not only is it not possible to offer these free speech and academic freedom protections at these satellite campuses, but can we even trust that universities will be honest about specifically and exactly what limits they'll be up against, and what power they have to push back against government repression or government laws?” McLaughlin asked. “I don't feel very confident about that right now.”

Adding to the palpable fear around truly free expression on campus is the increased technological integration on campuses during the last five years. When the COVID-19 pandemic forced higher education online in the spring of 2020, technology was employed to keep education going. With it came a new class of university concessions to tech companies and foreign nations and new means for students to be outed for expression that ran afoul of what is deemed permissible in their home countries.

For example, McLaughlin explained, the online shift occurred at the same time that Hong Kong enacted a sweeping National Security Law written to apply worldwide. “Every conversation, every class, every speech, every forum, everything was taking place online as this law passed that put a lot of fear into the millions of international students… who were starting to wonder, ‘What does this mean for my speech, which is now being tracked in a way it never was before?’”

We also “essentially made a middleman for higher education” with the introduction of third-party tech companies like Zoom that have no obligation to follow university norms or policies protecting expression, learning, and academic freedom. In one case, McLaughlin explains, an unpopular speaker for a university virtual event was not allowed to present on the platform because Zoom did not want the speaker on their platform.

“What does it mean when a third party corporation who doesn't have academic freedom commitments becomes the classroom, becomes the public square, becomes the quad?” she asked. “What does that mean for us?”

Some universities are pushing back, but the examples are few in number. Purdue publicly defended a Chinese student targeted by peers who threatened to report him to authorities for participating in Tiananmen commemoration events. Purdue stated that this is “unacceptable on our campus.”

So what else can be done to decrease student fear on campus and capitulate less often to foreign governments?

McLaughlin offered two key approaches. First, transparency. Much of the fear on campus, she argued, stems from opacity about foreign partnerships, tech-company gatekeeping, and (recently) about how universities are navigating a shifting federal environment. “A commitment to transparency would solve, or at least help address, some of this,” she said. Students and faculty need to know when their speech is constrained and why.

Second, protection. Faculty can adopt practical measures for vulnerable students such as pseudonyms in sensitive seminars, alternate participation channels, and keep one-on-one conversations confidential. Importantly, McLaughlin notes, such protections for particular students should not limit inquiry for everyone.

“Don’t censor yourself. Don’t censor other students,” McLaughlin said, and don’t make decisions “for students ‘in their best interests’” without their consent. Respect their agency to use the freedoms they may lack at home.

When I asked what we can do about the domestic threats to academic freedom and free expression we’re now facing in the U.S. (which began after McLaughlin finished writing this book), she answered that “universities need to be expected to make what may in some cases [be] costly decisions to defend their values. We have to expect our universities to prioritize their values over their financial opportunities and over political expediency.” That expectation applies to foreign partnerships and to domestic political winds alike.