Self-Motivation
David Goggins
Former Navy Seal
Career Development
Bryan Cranston
Actor
Critical Thinking
Liv Boeree
International Poker Champion
Emotional Intelligence
Amaryllis Fox
Former CIA Clandestine Operative
Management
Chris Hadfield
Retired Canadian Astronaut & Author
Learn
from the world's big
thinkers
Start Learningfrom the world's big
thinkers
8 powerful speakers that might make you think differently about racism
8 powerful voices share what it's like to be black in America, and why white people must break the racist status quo.
19 June, 2020
- Black communities have been telling the nation, for more than a century, that they have been targeted, beaten, falsely accused and killed by the police and other institutions meant to protect them.
- They have not been believed until recently, when the rise in camera phones and social media finally enabled them show and disseminate proof.
- Even after the video of George Floyd's death on May 25, 2020, there remains defensiveness and denial among white Americans and institutions—a defensiveness that prevents change to the root of the problem: systemic racism. In this video, eight powerful voices share perspectives on being black in America, and why white inaction and white politeness must end.
To learn more about what you can do to end the racist status quo, educate yourself and take action. Here is Robin DiAngelo's list of resources.
Why are some psychopaths 'successful'? It may depend on one personality trait
What makes some psychopaths better able to control their antisocial tendencies?
13 May, 2020
Lions Gate Films/Columbia Pictures
- Researchers have long struggled to explain the stark differences in life outcomes of psychopaths.
- A new study suggests that the personality trait conscientiousness helps psychopaths develop impulse-control skills over time.
- However, this process seems to apply only to individuals who score high in certain psychopathic traits.
<p>What explains the stark differences in the life outcomes of psychopaths? Consider that one in five CEOs is a psychopath. That same rate also applies to prisoners. Of course, not all psychopaths are business leaders and criminals. But researchers have long struggled to explain why some psychopaths are relatively "successful," and others engage in antisocial behavior that ruins lives.</p><p>Now, a <a href="https://psyarxiv.com/rjg3q/" target="_blank">new study</a> — set to be published in the journal Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment — aims to shed light on the factors that control psychopathic behavior.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Psychopathic individuals are very prone to engaging in antisocial behaviors but what our findings suggest is that some may actually be better able to inhibit these impulses than others," lead author Emily Lasko, a doctoral candidate in the <a href="https://psychology.vcu.edu/" target="_blank">Department of Psychology</a> at Virginia Commonwealth University, told VCU News. "Although we don't know exactly what precipitates this increase in conscientious impulse control over time, we do know that this does occur for individuals high in certain psychopathy traits who have been relatively more 'successful' than their peers."</p>
'Successful' versus 'unsuccessful' psychopaths
<p>The study notes that psychopathy exists on a spectrum in society, and it can manifest through a variety of personality traits, such as interpersonal manipulation, impulsivity, callousness, grandiosity, and boldness. Some traits may help psychopaths become "successful," defined as those who adapt to social norms and avoid incarceration.</p><p>For example, the psychopathic trait fearlessness may help a psychopath become a good first-responder, while interpersonal manipulation might help a psychopath become an effective lawyer. In contrast, the psychopathic trait impulsivity may make a psychopath more likely to commit crime.</p><p>The researchers hypothesized that psychopaths who are able develop impulse-control skills are more likely to be successful. The team suggested that successful psychopaths develop a mechanism that gives them greater control over their behavior, helping them thwart their heightened antisocial impulses.</p><p>Conscientiousness is the trait that predicts whether a psychopath will develop this mechanism, according to the study.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The compensatory model posits that people higher in certain psychopathic traits (such as grandiosity and manipulation) are able to compensate for and overcome, to some extent, their antisocial impulses via increases in trait conscientiousness, specifically impulse control," Lasko said.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzI3Nzk5NC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NTA5ODY5MX0.LD4gtXrapdyGXtEuCBWv0P0tVbGZAiMnJl9TSsbgiAU/img.png?width=980" id="59e71" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d640951d0333c77a188759c480d59a3d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Lasko et al.
<p>To test the hypothesis, the researchers examined data from a seven-year longitudinal study on adolescent criminals in Arizona and Pennsylvania.<br></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Although these participants are not objectively 'successful,' this was an ideal sample to test our hypotheses for two main reasons," the researchers wrote. "First, adolescents are in a prime developmental phase for the improvement of impulse control. Allowing us the longitudinal variability we would need to test our compensatory model. Second, offenders are prone to antisocial acts, by definition, and their rates of recidivism provided a real-world index of 'successful' versus 'unsuccessful' psychopathy phenotypes."</p><p>The study found that adolescents who scored high in grandiose-manipulative psychopathic traits early in the study were more likely to develop better impulse control and less aggression over time. Psychopaths who scored higher in impulsivity didn't see as much of an increase.</p><p>The findings support the idea that psychopathy isn't just about personality deficits, but rather a combination of heightened and diminished traits, some of which compensate for each other over time.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Our findings support a novel model of psychopathy that we propose, which runs contradictory to the other existing models of psychopathy in that it focuses more on the strengths or 'surpluses' associated with psychopathy rather than just deficits," she said. "Psychopathy is not a personality trait simply composed of deficits — there are many forms that it can take."</p><p>The findings also suggest that the Big Five model of personality — of which conscientiousness is part — is an important tool for understanding psychopathy.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Together, these results point to the consequential nature of the development of conscientious traits for psychopathic individuals, which may promote adaptive re-entry into society. Indeed, even 'unsuccessful' offenders in our sample exhibited associations between their grandiose-manipulative traits and greater impulse control (albeit to a substantially lesser degree)."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
We spoke to hundreds of prison gang members – here’s what they said about life behind bars
Over 800 prisoners in Texas relate their experiences.
24 April, 2020
OSCAR RIVERA/AFP via Getty Images
The United States incarcerates a larger proportion of its citizens than any other developed country in the world, with around 1.5 million people serving time in prison.
<p> But to anyone who doesn't work or live in a facility, life behind bars largely remains a <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-hidden-behind-the-walls-of-americas-prisons-77282" target="_blank">mystery</a>. The public gets a glimpse of life on the inside only when there are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/us/mississippi-prisons.html" target="_blank">riots</a>, <a href="https://time.com/5722795/rodney-reed-innocent-execution-protests/" target="_blank">executions</a> or <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-jail-officers.html" target="_blank">scandals</a>.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.colorado.edu/sociology/david-pyrooz" target="_blank">criminologists</a>, <a href="https://publicservice.asu.edu/content/scott-decker" target="_blank">we</a> spent nine months interviewing over 800 prisoners in Texas in 2016. They told us about their lives before and during prison, as well as their impending return to the community, a journey shared by <a href="https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p17.pdf" target="_blank">over 600,000 people each year</a>.</p><p>We also learned about a significant reality in prisons: gangs. </p><p>Our <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Competing-Control-Gangs-Social-Prisons-ebook/dp/B07WNJR435" target="_blank">new book</a> pulls back the curtain on how gangs compete for control and structure prison life. Gangs wield power behind bars, but they are more fractured and have less control than people believe.</p>
<h2>Getting in, getting out</h2><p>Despite fairly extensive research on street gangs, there is little research on gangs in prison.</p><p>Conducting research in prisons is rare because it is hard to gain access. Prison officials tend to be risk-averse and loathe to let outsiders inside the walls. Even if researchers get inside, there's the possibility that prisoners will not participate in interviews. When the topic is gangs, these issues are even bigger.</p><p>That was not our experience. About half of the people we interviewed were affiliated with gangs. Gang and nongang prisoners told us, "I'd rather talk to you than sit in my cell." They saw the interview as cathartic; they were able to "get things off their chest" to a neutral party.</p><h2>The 'war years'</h2><p>Prison gangs exploded across the U.S. with the rise of <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18613/the-growth-of-incarceration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes" target="_blank">mass incarceration</a> in the 1980s. Texas prisons were mostly gang-free until bloody battles broke out in 1984-85 between the Mexican Mafia and Texas Syndicate as well as the Aryan Brotherhood and Mandingo Warriors. Fifty-two prisoners were murdered in a 21-month period that became known as the "<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003288559107100205?journalCode=tpjd" target="_blank">war years</a>."</p><p>Over 50 different gangs were represented in our study. Most of these gangs were active in prison and on the street. All of the 12 "security threat groups," or STGs as they are termed by prison officials, fit the classic view of prison gangs: organized, conspiratorial and violent. The remaining gangs are called "cliques." If security threat groups are like criminal organizations, cliques are like a band of criminals without clear leadership, direction or structure.</p><p>Race and ethnicity mattered to all gangs. <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=shmK3PaaT_UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=life+in+the+gang&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj69PLKocboAhUCOs0KHTdPDdEQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=life%20in%20the%20gang&f=false" target="_blank">Geographic proximity</a> is the great social sorter for street gangs; it is race and ethnicity for prison gangs. Nearly all of the prison gangs were composed of a single race or ethnicity.</p><p>The people we spoke with made it clear that prison gangs in Texas are not what they used to be. Prison gangs were described as "watered down," no longer having the teeth to enforce rules, especially the security threat groups. Few prisoners, including gang members, believed that gangs brought order to prisons or made prisons safer, a <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/10/how-gangs-took-over-prisons/379330/" target="_blank">claim often made about prison gangs</a>. The perception of power is stronger than its reality.</p>
<h2>Wielding power</h2><p>While gangs may not have iron-fisted control over prison life, it would be wrong to think they lack influence. If gang members compose only a minority of prisoners, around 20% in Texas according to our research, how do they wield power?</p><p>Violence.</p><p>Gangs use violence to resolve disputes, discipline members and protect their interests. Stories of violence are passed down across generations to ensure the memory lives on. The "war years" occurred more than 30 years ago, yet still loom large in the minds of the people we interviewed.</p><p>Gangs bring a different flavor to prison violence. There is a multiplier effect. A violent incident involving a gang member expands the pool of future victims and offenders because of the collective gang identity. Being in a gang means assuming these liabilities.</p>
<h2>Joining the gang</h2><p>For the uninitiated, <a href="https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/10/24/being-a-prisoner-is-like-being-a-ghost" target="_blank">prison is scary</a>. People are stripped of their identity, roles and status from the outside. About half of the prison population is convicted of a <a href="https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html" target="_blank">violent offense</a>. Joining a gang would seem like a pretty good decision.</p><p>Our research reveals that about 10% of inmates in Texas joined a gang for the first time in prison, while another 10% imported their gang affiliation from the street. Status and protection were common reasons for joining a gang in prison, much like on the street. But ideology was also important, such as race supremacy or vigilantism, which we rarely observe in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Confronting-Gangs-Community-David-Curry/dp/0199891915" target="_blank">street gangs</a>.</p><p>Still, most prisoners don't end up in gangs. That's true even though avoiding gangs is harder in prison than on the street. Nongang members get their affiliations "checked" and are often recruited when they step onto a prison unit. Those that want to avoid gangs cite their religion, homosexuality or even status as sex offenders – most gangs ban inmates convicted of sex crimes – as reasons to not to join.</p><h2>Blood in, blood out</h2><p>It was once believed that once you join a gang <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Social-Order-Underworld-Prison-American/dp/0199328501" target="_blank">you could never leave</a>. Criminologists have <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318857376_A_Signaling_Perspective_on_Disengagement_from_Gangs" target="_blank">dispelled this myth</a> among street gangs; young people leave gangs regularly, and usually without repercussions like violence. We also found this to be the case in prison, even for the security threat groups.</p><p>Disillusionment is the leading reason for leaving. Gang members eventually realize they are sold a bill of goods on gangs. Snitching, victimization, solitary confinement and delayed parole crystallize discontent with gang life.</p><p>Leaving a gang is more difficult in prison. Walking away is not a credible option. Gang members sought permission or "gave notice" of intentions to leave, or enrolled in the prison system's two-year exit program.</p>
<h2>Block the on-ramps, open the off-ramps</h2><p>Despite decades of effort, breaking the grip of gangs on prison has been unsuccessful. The "silver bullet" simply doesn't exist.</p><p>Placing gang members in <a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/251797.pdf" target="_blank">solitary confinement</a> is thought to be a solution, but that's a management approach. It applies a Band-Aid to a bullet wound that could hurt more than help. And one-size-fits-all approaches to rehabilitation ignore the baggage of gang affiliation.</p><p>To compete for control, gangs need numbers, which is why focusing on points of entry and exit offers hope for reducing the power of gangs in attracting new members and encouraging current members to leave.</p><p>Doing nothing only allows the problem to fester and grow. Prisoners today will eventually become the <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Homeward-Life-Year-After-Prison/dp/0871549557" target="_blank">neighbors, religious congregants and employees</a> of tomorrow. We want people to leave prison in a condition better than they arrived. That means effective responses to gangs.</p><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-pyrooz-198645" target="_blank">David Pyrooz</a>, Associate Professor of Sociology, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-colorado-boulder-733" target="_blank">University of Colorado Boulder</a></em> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/scott-h-decker-184796" target="_blank">Scott H. Decker</a>, Foundation Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/arizona-state-university-730" target="_blank">Arizona State University</a></em></p><p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com/" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-spoke-to-hundreds-of-prison-gang-members-heres-what-they-said-about-life-behind-bars-132573" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Algorithms identify repeat offenders better than judges
Can AI make better predictions about future crimes?
17 February, 2020
Image source: Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock
- A new study finds algorithmic predictions of recidivism more accurate than human authorities.
- Researchers are trying to construct tests of such AI that accurately mirror real-world deliberations.
- What level of reliability should we demand of AI in sentencing?
<p>It's pre-crime time again. (See <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/'" target="_blank"><em>Minority Report</em></a>.)</p><p>When judges, correctional authorities, and parole boards are making sentencing, supervision, and release decisions, they're essentially trying to peer into an offender's future to assess the person's potential for recidivism. To help guide these determinations — and no doubt influenced by our contemporary infatuation with artificial intelligence — authorities are increasingly turning to risk assessment instruments (RAIs) on the assumption that their AI can more accurately identify those likely to be repeat offenders. </p><p>A new <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/7/eaaz0652" target="_blank">study</a> in <em>Science Advances</em> more rigorously confirms that algorithmic judgements <em>may</em> in fact be more accurate than humans. Of concern, though, is that given the stakes involved — future crimes, a defendant's freedom or continued incarceration — they're still not reliable <em>enough</em> to ensure that justice is truly done and that tragic mistakes can be avoided.</p>
RAIs, NG?
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjc3MzAwMC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMDQxMjM4N30.ByZIs2U0SqXx4bf6u9LvqCAk-rwUuM33ClPkxuQhEk8/img.jpg?width=980" id="aa986" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="30eabf6c00ea57d1257274d16330fd0d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Image source: Andrey Suslov/Shutterstock
<p>The new study, led by computational social scientist <a href="https://5harad.com" target="_blank">Sharad Goel</a> of Stanford University, is in a sense a reply to a <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/1/eaao5580?ijkey=acb268ff69558c41f4083ae815a5c7a262232a5d&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha" target="_blank">recent work</a> by programming expert Julia Dressel and digital image specialist Hany Farid. In that earlier research, participants attempted to predict whether or not any of 50 individuals would commit new crimes of any kind within the next two years based on short descriptions of their case histories. (No images or racial/ethnic information were provided to participants to avoid a skewing of results due to related biases.) The average accuracy rate participants achieved was 62%.</p><p>The same criminals and case histories cases were also processed through a widely used RAI called COMPAS, for "Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions." The accuracy of its predictions was about the same: 65%, leading Dressel and Farid to conclude that COMPAS "is no more accurate … than predictions made by people with little or no criminal justice expertise."</p>Taking a second look
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjc3MzAwNi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MDg4MjA1MX0._jJsmArbQFUQquUG5Hnpu8xLaXG0qxSQa1zRx2GcL-E/img.jpg?width=980" id="c6964" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="69dbbb9244e916e4e4e2bf1a7efb6189" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" /><p>Goel felt that two aspects of the testing method used by Dressel and Farid didn't reproduce closely enough the circumstances in which humans are called upon to predict recidivism during sentencing:</p><ol><li>Participants in that study learned how to improve their predictions, much as an algorithm might, as they were provided feedback as to the accuracy of each prognostication. However, as Goel points out, "In justice settings, this feedback is exceedingly rare. Judges may never find out what happens to individuals that they sentence or for whom they set bail."</li><li>Judges, etc. also often have a great deal of information in hand as they make their predictions, not short summaries in which only the most salient information is presented. In the real world, it can be hard to ascertain which information is the most relevant when there's arguably too much of it at hand.</li></ol><p>Both of these factors put participants on a more equal footing with an RAI than they would be in real life, perhaps accounting for the similar levels of accuracy encountered.</p><p>To that end, Goel and his colleagues performed several of their own, slightly different, trials.</p><p>The first experiment closely mirrored Dressel's and Farid's — with feedback and short case descriptions — and indeed found that humans and COMPAS performed pretty much equally well. Another experiment asked participants to predict the future occurrence of <em>violent</em> crime, not just any crime, and again the accuracy rates were comparable, though much higher. Humans scored 83% as COMPAS achieved 89% accuracy.</p><p>When participant feedback was removed, however, humans fell far behind COMPAS in accuracy, down to around 60% as opposed to COMPAS's 89%, as Goel hypothesized they might.</p><p>Finally, humans were tested against a different RAI tool called LSI-R. In this case, both had to try and predict an individual's future using on a large amount of case information similar to what a judge may have to wade through. Again, the RAI outperformed humans in predicting future crimes, 62% to 57%. When asked to predict who would wind up going back to prison for their future misdeeds, the results were even worse for participants, who got it right just 58% of the time as opposed to 74% for LSI-R.</p>Good enough?
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjc3MzAxNS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyNzk5MTc5OH0.kq0yWKlclL3emX-xxqeLxN53v1czSUhKBDEmglY6VZ0/img.jpg?width=980" id="b3c58" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d00f0ba7c26d9fdada23607448ffdc33" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />Image source: klss/Shutterstock
<p>Goel concludes, "our results support the claim that algorithmic risk assessments can often outperform human predictions of reoffending." Of course, this isn't the only important question. There's also this: Is AI yet reliable enough to make its prediction count for more than that of a judge, correctional authority, or parole board member?</p><p><a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ai-can-predict-criminals-repeat-offenders-better-than-humans" target="_blank"><em>Science News</em></a> asked Farid, and he said no. When asked how he'd feel about an RAI that could be counted on to be right 80% of the time, he responded, "you've got to ask yourself, if you're wrong 20 percent of the time, are you willing to tolerate that?"</p><p>As AI technology improves, we may one day reach a state in which RAIs are reliably accurate, but no one is claiming we're there yet. For now, then, the use of such technologies in an advisory role for authorities tasked with making sentencing decisions may make sense, but only as one more "voice" to consider.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
China tightens its grip on freedom in academics
Scholars often debate risking their livelihoods and personal safety in order to conduct research in certain areas.
09 December, 2019
Getty Images
- Authoritarian governments that rely heavily on coercion must be more intrusive about how education shapes the personality and character of its members.
- In China, there are topics that scholars know to avoid — especially, the Three Ts: Taiwan, Tibet, and Tiananmen Square.
- While the majority of scholars are likely toeing the party line when it comes to their research, some are working toward encouraging academic freedom in the country, often at significant risk to themselves and their families.
<p><br></p></div>
<p>In March of 2019, Chinese President<a href="https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3002243/xi-jinping-tells-chinese-teachers-help-nurture-support-communist" target="_blank"> Xi Jinping</a> called on Chinese educators to "nurture generation after generation [of young people] who support Chinese Communist Party rule and China's socialist system." What does this mean for the state of scholarship in China? Toeing the line between the right and wrong viewpoint is a serious matter for scholars in that country. It can be the difference between a fulfilling career and being barred from research, removed from the country, or even imprisoned.</p><p>This interconnection between government and education is ancient — think, Plato's "Republic." Any society needs to bring new members into conformity with the order that society aims at. In the U.S. this is called civics education and comprises understanding the rules under which our society is structured. These rules allow a wide degree of individual freedom rooted in individual rights. Citizens must understand those rights and how those rights constrain and protect us in our interactions with each other and the government. Traditionally in the US many of these rights are also not seen to be the sole privilege of citizens but what are owed to humans as many are extended to non-citizen residents and visitors. </p><p>Authoritarian governments that rely heavily on coercion must be more intrusive about how education shapes the personality and character of its members. The system erected by the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) rests on control by the party. As such, the government looks to prohibit thoughts and actions that would undermine party control.</p><p>Consider the case of Liu Xiaobo, the scholar and human rights activist who, along with more than 300 other Chinese citizens, signed Charter 08, a political manifesto demanding freedom of expression, human rights, and economic liberalism in China.<a href="https://www.amnesty.org.uk/blogs/countdown-china/liu-xiaobo-formally-arrested-inciting-subversion-state-power" target="_blank"> According</a> to Chinese officials, signatories of this statement were guilty of "inciting subversion of state power." Liu was sentenced to 11 years of imprisonment though he died of liver cancer after serving eight.</p><p>While this incident might have made international headlines, it is not a wholly unique one in the age of the internet garnering easier access than ever to liberal values. Scholars across China are regularly targeted for working on subjects that upset the CCP or are coerced into restricting their research to acceptable topics.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjE0NzIyNy9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxODA4NTI2N30.M59YIyV0oRXSgEbFu2zuEstpEf9PDEDXJZm2E4SoRzE/img.jpg?width=980" id="34953" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d9c28a2aa2f34804f2e9d04b9fbdcd37" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
President Xi Jinping inspects the Chinese People's Liberation Army Garrison In Hong Kong.
Getty Images
Lessons in the wrong ideology
<p>In China, there are topics that scholars know to avoid. First are the Three Ts: Taiwan, Tibet, and Tiananmen Square. There are also seven additional subjects that educators are forbidden from teaching that are listed in the so-called<a href="https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1234453/seven-subjects-limits-teaching-chinese-universities-told" target="_blank"> Document Number Nine</a>, a document circulated amongst the CCP that was leaked in July 2013. These seven forbidden subjects are those that promote Western constitutional democracy, universal values, civil society, neoliberalism, Western-style journalism, "historical nihilism," and questioning China's reforms and socialist nature.</p><p>This document was first leaked in 2013, the same year that Xi came to power, and it is believed to have been<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-leadership-takes-hard-line-in-secret-memo.html?mcubz=1" target="_blank"> developed</a> or at least approved by Xi. Since its publication and Xi's assumption of power, the CCP has wielded increasingly forceful influence over what is and is not permissible in China's higher education system.</p>Being 'taken for tea'
<p>While studying the actions of the CCP against scholars in mainland Chinese universities is challenging for obvious reasons, studies from universities in Hong Kong, Australia, North America, and other regions conducting research in mainland China have recently been published.</p><p>Chestnut Greitens and colleagues conducted such a<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243059" target="_blank"> study</a> on over 500 researchers. They found that nearly 10 percent of their sample had been approached by authorities and "taken for tea," a euphemism for when scholars are interrogated and intimidated. As one scholar relayed:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">Our research group, consisting of Chinese and foreign scholars, were conducting survey research in [redacted]. Some elements of the research topic were considered politically sensitive. We were contacted by the county government, spent a full day "having tea" and discussing the project, and finally asked to leave the county. We complied.</p><p>A further 12 percent said their Chinese colleagues had been approached and asked about their work, roughly a quarter were denied access to archival records, and 17 percent had interview subjects withdraw in a suspicious or unexplained manner. The primary concern of these researchers, however, was not their own safety but rather that of their Chinese colleagues or informants. Researchers recommended paying attention to how mainland Chinese collaborators reacted, as they were far more likely to face the consequences of any politically sensitive research project. One researcher said, "This is more important than your publication or your tenure or your degree. If you think in these terms and observe cues of whether people are comfortable or want to cooperate, you should be OK."</p><p>But these concerns can also persuade researchers to engage in self-censorship. In an interview with Big Think, Robert Quinn, the founder of the Scholars at Risk Network, discussed how researchers can be persuaded to do the CCP's work for them:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">We don't understand how much our thoughts, our very thoughts and therefore our identities, are shaped by implicit permission to think that or ask that or say that. … When they come and haul away the professor in the office next to yours to prison, that affects whether you're going to publish the next article. How do we measure that?</p>The right to know: How does censorship affect academics?
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="f9cesWkQ" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="0fff8b03a2b813e855b270cd75b3a4b7"> <div id="botr_f9cesWkQ_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/f9cesWkQ-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/f9cesWkQ-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/f9cesWkQ-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div>Consequences for mainland Chinese scholars
<p>While statistics on the nature of academic freedom within mainland China are limited, the Scholars at Risk network has assembled a report detailing the experiences of several Chinese scholars, titled<a href="https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/resources/obstacles-to-excellence-academic-freedom-chinas-quest-for-world-class-universities/" target="_blank"> Obstacles to Excellence</a>.</p><p>The report describes several features of Chinese academia with chilling effects on research, such as the use of student informants. These informants report on other students' and teachers' comments and activities for the CCP. Dezhou University in Shandong Province reportedly issued a directive to set up a student informant network intended to "destroy the seeds of discord that may affect security and stability before they sprout."</p><p>Scholars that are perceived to sow "the seeds of discord" often face serious consequences. Some Chinese scholars reported having their travel restricted, being fired from their positions, being followed by plainclothes police, having their communications monitored, and having other measures taken up against them. For example, legal scholar Teng Biao, a signatory of Charter 08, was forbidden from publishing books and banned from teaching. In 2011, plainclothes police officers detained Teng, throwing a sack over his head, and held him for 70 days while he was beaten and tortured.</p><p>These actions by the CCP tend to be more severe in the more politically sensitive regions of China, such as Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Tibet. In the Xinjiang province, for instance, where the persecuted Uighur minority primarily resides, residents are made to install surveillance software on their mobile phones. The province also hosts a number of re-education camps where Uighur Muslims are made to eat pork and drink alcohol, recite CCP anthems, and attend indoctrination classes.</p><p>While the majority of scholars are likely toeing the party line when it comes to their research, some are working toward encouraging academic freedom in the country, often at significant risk to themselves and their families. For this reason, acceptance of scholars fleeing persecution is imperative for nations with more fortunate attitudes toward academic freedom. Even so, this fear of displacement will historically affect the scope of knowledge in a country like China, making the pursuit of academic freedom more important than ever.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
Featured Video
