Academic freedom remains a matter of concern for academics throughout Australia and beyond, however this needs to be put in context when considered in the international arena. Yojana Sharma (2021) recently remarked upon a survey of some 200 Singaporean academics who flagged serious concerns over their ability to work in an environment free of (mainly indirect) barriers or threats to academic freedom. When you reflect upon some of the issues within Australia’s own university operations, such concerns may also have resonance with various Australian tertiary onshore and offshore activities.

The Drew Pavlou case, and the attendant revelations concerning alleged CCP influence within UQ for example, is every bit as disturbing as the claims now being reported from within Singapore’s academic community. Though the Pavlou matter may have been ‘ameliorated’ out of the headlines for the moment, it is a firm reminder of the tensions between our new corporate tertiary management and its interests and the older, purported values of the academy.

Extent of freedoms
Singapore is one of the more benign zones of operation for Australian and other foreign universities, but (beyond the claims raised by Sharma) it also observes the death penalty for illicit drug practices and outlaws homosexuality. Those operating in say Thailand, Vietnam, the Arabian Gulf, Hong-Kong, Malaysia or Indonesia may similarly not be as free to openly express their political opinions, ideologies and, in some of those countries, even their gender identity preferences as they would be in Australia, the UK or America. Consequently, academic freedom is defined and experienced differently for the students and faculty of Australian branded overseas campuses – depending upon the countries they are operating in.

In the UAE, for instance, NYU negotiated a special arrangement whereby staff and student access to the internet (on campus and in campus-controlled accommodation) isn’t censored. Some other overseas universities, in the Dubai Educational Free Zone for example, may also enjoy this on-campus privilege. Outside, in the wider community, the rules can be very different. Voicing non-conforming political, cultural, and religious views may not be well tolerated. Universities and individuals outside the specified free zones operate according to local expectations – including internet censorship. But isn’t it the right of a nation to determine its own values, laws and culturally influenced behavioural norms – even when we don’t agree with them all? Differences aside, the UAE is probably still the most open and culturally accessible of the oil rich states – and Australian and Western universities have successfully operated there for decades without major concern.

And despite certain nations possessing the death penalty or lengthy imprisonment for drug offences, homosexuality or the expression of unapproved political sentiments, by far the bulk of students studying at the Foreign Branch Campuses (FBCs) operating in these regions are not Australian but are drawn from communities and cultures habituated to the values and practices preferred by the host nations. They, by and large, understand how to live and operate safely in such environments. Perhaps that makes a difference?

Transition from foreign branch campuses to parent campuses
Each year students from Australian FBCs move to their parent universities in Australia to complete their studies. However, some students from Australia do the reverse – and go to Australian FBCs to gain international experience. All of this is excellent for the students and their cultural learning. What it also highlights is a level of cultural ambivalence from the leadership of some Australian universities to the differences faced by their students and academics living and working offshore. It is one thing to be in an enclave without overt internet censorship or vilification of LGBTQIA+ identities on campus, but it is no guarantee that your views and personal identifications won’t present difficulties for you when you are off campus.

What would be considered unconscionable in any university in Australia is, perhaps, condoned and better tolerated when it occurs, offshore, in an FBC environment. And there is nothing very new in this ambivalence when it comes to leveraging international relationships which might strategically benefit any given university. Honorary doctorates have often been awarded to international politicians or their spouses in the hope of strengthening ties with influential people: even when some of the recipients have acquired abundant controversial ‘notoriety’. Throughout the sector this seems to have become an accepted way of ‘doing business’.

We are in an era of financially driven, profit motivated tertiary competition in which the VC's new must-have accessory is a personal corporate lawyer to wield ominously at executive meetings. The current dominant business model of reliance upon sales to international markets is revealing that the values and interests of corporate good do not always appear to be the same as those of public good or even academic freedom. Traditionally cherished and long held academic values and freedoms are not uniformly upheld or experienced across all of the environments a university brand may be operating in. Is it even realistic or necessary to think that they should be?

Suspension of scholarships
The emerging issue of scholarships for students from the oil rich Gulf States being temporarily suspended (The Australian, 11th August 2021) is a predictable turn of events. Deeper knowledge, experience and understanding of the cultures in which their universities are operating and drawing revenue from could have resolved the scholarship issues currently being faced. Sad to say, this matter has once more been reported largely in terms of the potential financial losses impacting those universities involved rather than in acknowledging the devastating impacts the suspension will mean for students. To constantly speak of international student markets in terms of lost revenue may be seen as lacking in cultural competence.

Our universities make considerable, important contributions to the higher education sectors and communities they serve in – both onshore and offshore. Essentially, in order to operate efficiently and effectively within international waters, a more informed, transparent and nuanced understanding of our expectations of international academic freedom and of Australian values of human rights needs to be articulated. Such understandings may, at times, even be at odds with the perceived values of campuses back home.


Emeritus Professor Jim Mienczakowski is a Higher Education Consultant.
Emeritus Professor Greg Whateley is Deputy Vice Chancellor at Group Colleges Australia.